Are we just looking at the LDS faith or trying to redefine it?
The LDS faith is defined by the Church in its standard works and in the teachings of living apostles and prophets, beginning with the life and Atonement of Jesus Christ and continuing on through all matters addressed by them in official settings. The Church is built on the foundation of apostles and prophets. (See Eph. 2:19–20; 4:11–14). They have divine authority. By revelation they direct the Church and maintain doctrinal purity. Mankind is free to accept or reject the gospel as taught by the prophets and apostles. Those who listen to and follow the counsel of living prophets and apostles will not go astray. The teachings of apostles and prophets provide an anchor of eternal truth. (See Preach My Gospel, 33, 36, 75.)
He is the author of "Crawling Out of the Primordial Soup: A Step toward the Emergence of an LDS Theology Compatible with Organic Evolution." (Dialogue 43, no.1, Spring 2010).
He blogs at By Common Consent, and runs a Faith/Science blog, The Mormon Organon, where he extols the virtues of mixing theology and Darwinian evolution. The subtitle of his blog is "A BYU Biology Professor Looks at Science and the LDS Faith." However, in a recent blog post he goes beyond looking at the LDS faith and attempts to redefine it by promoting evolution and the big bang to the status of science revelations from God promised as part of the restoration:
"Suspicions about evolution and climate change have created an atmosphere where two of science’s most strongly supported investigations are dismissed. To do that, you have to dismiss science itself. Really....
"We [now] understand so much more of how the universe works. From the genetic fabric of life and its ability to change, to the fine scale structure of galaxy on temporal scales from the Big Bang to the unfolding of galactic motion and spatial scales from the size that gives us the structure of the atom (the Higgs Boson!) to the dark matter megastructures that make up 84% of the universe....
"Science is a gift. Do not so easily dismiss the power of its findings in order to fuel your political and economic agendas. It will come back to haunt you. And you are missing some of the revelations promised as part of the restoration." If evolution and the big bang were "revelations" from God, those ideas wouldn't be rejected by God's authorized servants. One of those authorized servants is Russell M. Nelson. Before being called as an apostle, he was an internationally renowned heart surgeon and medical researcher. In the April 2012 general conference, Elder Nelson extolled various organs of the human body as wondrous gifts from God and gave this warning:
"Some people erroneously think that these marvelous physical attributes happened by chance or resulted from a big bang somewhere." (Ensign, May 2012.) That is a very concise denunciation of both evolution and the big bang.
During an October 2011 trip to Africa, Elder Nelson spoke to the missionaries in Kenya and talked about the miracles of the human body.
In 1987, Russell M. Nelson gave a devotional address at BYU. In 1988, the talk was published in the Ensign as "The Magnificence of Man." In it, Elder Nelson said:
"Some ... have deduced that, because of certain similarities between different forms of life, there has been an organic evolution from one form to another. Many of these have concluded that the universe began as a 'big bang' that eventually resulted in the creation of our planet and life upon it. To me, such theories are unbelievable!...
"It is incumbent upon each informed and spiritually attuned person to help overcome such foolishness of men who would deny divine creation or think that man simply evolved." (Ensign, Jan. 1988.) In light of his talks in 1987 and 2011, it should be obvious that Elder Nelson's April 2012 general conference comment was not just a last-minute, off-the-cuff remark.
Okay. It is true that Steven Peck didn't name Russell Nelson in his blog post. But he did mention evolution and the big bang and said those who reject such strongly supported science "are missing some of the revelations promised as part of the restoration." If that is true, Russell M. Nelson has been preaching against two scientific revelations from God. That is an absurd accusation and it will most assuredly come back to haunt Steven L. Peck.
A capable scientist without apostolic keys
Steven L. Peck is associate professor of biology at Brigham Young University where he teaches the history and philosophy of biology and bioethics.
God's authorized servants
Speaking to missionaries in 2011
“Your nature is divine because you have divinity within you,” Elder Nelson said. “[Heavenly Father] created you.” He contrasted his belief with scientists who believe that humans are a result of chance or that creation came about through the Big Bang theory. “As a medical scientist, I know that is not true,” he said. “Every organ in the body is so well designed and so marvelous in its function and its ability to heal itself and repair itself and take care of itself.” (Church News, Nov. 15, 2011.)
A quarter century ago
Conclusion
posted by R. Gary on 7/14/2012 04:51:00 PM
41 Comments:
"It is incumbent upon each informed and spiritually attuned person to help overcome such foolishness of men who would deny divine creation or think that man simply evolved." (Ensign, Jan. 1988.)
Steven Peck neither denies divine creation, nor claim that man "simply" did anything.
Re: "Steven Peck neither denies divine creation, nor claim that man "simply" did anything."
I'm sure it would be futile for anyone to argue with that carefully worded comment. But I'm equally as certain that SteveP does NOT agree with Elder Nelson:
-------------- quote --------------
"Through the ages, some ... have deduced that, because of certain similarities between different forms of life, there has been a natural selection of the species, or organic evolution from one form to another....
"To me, such theories are unbelievable!...
"We are children of God, created by him and formed in his image. Recently I studied the scriptures to find how many times they testify of the divine creation of man. Looking up references that referred to create, form (or their derivatives), with either man, men, male, or female in the same verse, I found that there are at least fifty-five verses of scripture that attest to our divine creation....
"I believe all of those scriptures that pertain to the creation of man. But the decision to believe is a spiritual one, not made solely by an understanding of things physical, for we read that ' the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.' (1 Cor. 2:14.)
"It is incumbent upon each informed and spiritually attuned person to help overcome such foolishness of men who would deny divine creation or think that man simply evolved. By the Spirit, we perceive the truer and more believable wisdom of God.
"With great conviction, I add my testimony to that of my fellow Apostle Paul, who said, ' Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? ' " (Ensign, Jan 1988.)
-------------- end quote --------------
On another occasion, Elder Nelson said it this way:
-------------- quote --------------
"We believe that God is our creator and that he has created other forms of life. It's interesting to me, drawing on my 40 years experience as a medical doctor, how similar those species are. We developed open-heart surgery, for example, experimenting on lower animals simply because the same creator made the human being. We owe a lot to those lower species. But to think that man evolved from one species to another is, to me, incomprehensible.... Man has always been man. Dogs have always been dogs. Monkeys have always been monkeys. It's just the way genetics works." (2007 Pew Forum interview.)
-------------- end quote --------------
According to Peck's blog, anyone (including Russell M. Nelson) who rejects strongly supported science, such as evolution and the big bang, is "missing some of the revelations promised as part of the restoration." That's what SteveP said. And it leads to the absurd conclusion that Russell M. Nelson has been preaching against two revelations from God.
Dogs haven't always been dogs. They've been bred, crossbred, constructed, deconstructed, defined, redefined, and they've evolved. I believe Elder Nelson is an apostle, but I don't believe he is perfect, or that anything he says should be accepted without thought, reason, or revelation. So what do I do with the claim that dogs have always been dogs? I shrug and say, well, he got that one wrong.
The nonsensical phrase "natural selection of the species" doesn't give me much hope that he understands what natural selection is, much less how it works.
Quickmere Graham: I agree, perfection is not required to be an apostle. Each of us must give careful thought to what an apostle says and seek the confirmation of heaven regarding its truthfulness. Elder Nelson teaches that to think man evolved from one species to another is incomprehensible. SteveP doesn't agree. So far, no problem. As far as I'm concerned, you and SteveP are free to believe whatever you want about the origin of man.
But the LDS faith is not defined by science, it is defined by apostles and prophets. And for more than 182 years, the apostles and prophets have talked about the origin of man in official settings. The result? Church published apostolic statements about the origin of man speak unanimously against the idea that organic evolution explains the origin of man. Human evolution is NOT a revelation from God, and SteveP has no authority to teach LDS college students that it is. That's the problem.
Except, Steve P. IS authorized by GAs to teach human evolution. The Board of Trustees of BYU approve the programs. BYU has a vigorous and strong human evolutionary program.
SteveP is authorized to teach science. Period. Science by definition excludes the supernatural. Promoting evolution and the big bang to the status of science revelations from God is not in his contract. You may be certain of that.
You are no doubt aware of the many statements by GAs over the years to the effect that all scientific discoveries are revelations from God.
If evolution and the big bang were "revelations" from God, those ideas wouldn't be rejected by God's authorized servants.
Really? I don't think that's a premise (that prophets and apostles will never reject scientific truths) that can be sustained.
Oh Gary. Just give it up. Seriously.
Jared*: Many discoveries like radio, television, and the internet have been embraced by the Lord's servants and used to share the gospel throughout the world. Air travel greatly enlarges the ability of the apostles and prophets to minister to the Saints in all parts of the world.
But it is a false premise that the apostles and prophets will always and necessarily accept every scientific theory. For example, the scientific theory of human evolution has never once been accepted by an apostle in official Church published manuals, magazines, or handbooks, and never once in general conference. On the other hand, human evolution has often been rejected by the apostles and prophets in official Church media (including general conference) as an explanation for the origin of man.
Therefore, as it presently stands, anyone misrepresents The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who claims that the Church accepts human evolution as a science revelation from God.
Gary---I guess you are just saying that LDS faith is a narrow subset of the Glory of God. Professor Peck has important insights to share. You've chosen not to listen and learn.
Anonymous: In the Church's formal First Presidency statement human origins, the word "man" refers to all of mankind. It says "man" won't discover human origins without the help of those authorized to receive revelations from God:
-------------- quote --------------
"Man, by searching, cannot find out God. Never, unaided, will he discover the truth about the beginning of human life. The Lord must reveal Himself or remain unrevealed; and the same is true of the facts relating to the origin of Adam's race—God alone can reveal them." (Ensign, Feb 2002.)
-------------- end quote --------------
Science cannot discover the true facts relating to human origins because God alone can reveal them. And a unanimous opinion from the apostles and prophets who speak for God about human origins is clear that Darwinian evolution does NOT explain the origin of man.
Professor Peck should teach his scientific insights to his students. That's what he was hired to do. But Professor Peck is out of line if he teaches that the Lord's authorized representatives are wrong about evolution and that more accurate information has been revealed to science by God.
Joseph Smidt: The web site you linked is not sponsored by the LDS Church. Show me even one such statement from any member of the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve as published on LDS.org and I'll gladly publish it on my blog.
In fairness to Peck, he never specified human evolution, and his post was really more directed toward politics and climate change. Evolution only got two passing mentions.
The most relevant document to his job is the evolution packet, the cover letter of which states that "there has never been a formal declaration from the First Presidency addressing the general matter of organic evolution as a process for development of biological species," and that "Various views have been expressed by other Church leaders on this subject over many decades; however, formal statements by the First Presidency are the definitive source of official Church positions."
Thus, unless you can show that Peck specifically intended human evolution in his post, his comments fall within the latitude given by the Board of Trustees statement.
Similarly, I'm unaware of any First Presidency statements regarding scientific theories of cosmology such as the Big Bang. Searching LDS.org for "big bang" returned only a handful of references. Elder Nelson was the only leader among those references. Thus, it seems to me that Elder Nelson's statements about the Big Bang, when measured against Elder Christofferson's conference talk, and the talk by J. Reuben Clark on which it draws, constitute personal opinion. This is supported by Elder Nelson's use of the phrase, "to me..."
Given the above, and the fact that he never mentioned Elder Nelson (as you point out), I think your charge that Peck's post makes "absurd accusations" against Elder Nelson is off base.
Jared*: And in fairness to Elder Nelson, he doesn't always argue specifically against human evolution. If we care about his meaning and not just his words that is relevant. "Man has always been man. Dogs have always been dogs. Monkeys have always been monkeys. It's just the way genetics works." That's how Elder Nelson sees evolution.
Peck names in his first paragraph, evolution and climate change. And evolution is named first. Your comment about the evolution packet and non-human evolution is correct. But just because there is no official position on something, doesn't mean there isn't an unofficial position. For example, there has never been formal declaration from the First Presidency condemning cola drinks. Yet you'll never hear anyone in general conference say the Church is neutral on cola drinks.
Peck is employed by BYU, owned by the Church. Peck should have more respect for Elder Nelson and Church members who see his comments as an outgrowth of both the standard works and the teachings of current and previous apostles and prophets. Peck's claim that evolution is a restoration revelation is an insult to Russell M. Nelson and it is inappropriate.
Gary,
Speaking of the First Presidency statement, you say that, "It says "man" won't discover human origins without the help of those authorized to receive revelations from God".
First of all, the part you quoted says nothing of the sort. It just says that God's help will be required to make that knowledge available.
Second, aren't we all authorized to receive revelations from God? Sure, only the President is authorized to receive revelation pertaining to official church doctrines and policies for the entire world, but as mentioned by Jared* (and acknowledged by yourself), there is no "official" position of the church regarding evolution. Why couldn't scientists have been inspired to come across this knowledge?
You mention our forms of communication as an example of divinely inspired scientific discoveries. Did Philo Farnsworth have to get Pres. Grant to approve the television as official church doctrine before we could accept it as a great discovery with divine origins? Not that I know of. Why would evolution have to be any different?
Stanton S: When God reveals truth to his authorized servants, you can be sure He isn't going to contradict Himself to a scientist.
We are talking about two kinds of evolution: Human evolution and evolution of plants and animals. The Church has no official position on the latter, but does have an official position on the former.
In 1909, there was a formal statement by the First Presidency on the origin of man. It has been corroborated and affirmed by apostles and prophets for more than 100 years now. It says:
-------------- quote --------------
"It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was 'the first man of all men' (Moses 1:34)."
-------------- end quote --------------
This statement has been reprinted by the Church twice in the 21st century as the official position of the Church on human evolution.
This post seems to misrepresent Peck's claims (he was focusing primarily on climate change) and also seems to over-reach regarding Elder Nelson's claims (I don't recall him claiming his statements regarding the Big Bang were revelatory or binding on any church member). It borders, to me, on libel. I've learned from long experience that it isn't worth arguing with you on such matters, R. Gary. You assume your personal views represent the LDS Church's views (they don't), you over-reach your own stewardship in presuming to cast judgment on a fellow saint (you oughtn't).
I look forward to the coming day when the selective anti-scientific ideas you insist on promulgating are relegated to our historical records and not the present consciousness of the worldwide church.
To all readers: BHodges is the bloggernacle expert on mockery and name calling when it comes to anyone who tries to listen the apostles and prophets instead of instructing and discrediting them. So enjoy the above comment and read it again, after you read this blog discussion about evil speaking of the Lord's anointed.
Come on, Gary. You don't have to bash on BHodges to the world. He has a different opinion, so what? Take it easy. Your version of mockery and name calling may be more subtle, but it still exists in your last comment.
Anonymous: You might be interested in this blog discussion about mockery and name calling.
Is it possible that Elder Nelson or other GAs who discount evolution are just plain wrong? Don't we have examples from our past of apostles being wrong about something (priesthood denial comes to mind)? If we are to accept every single thing apostles have ever said as coming directly from the Lord Himself, I'm afraid we are in for a difficult time.
Don: The way I see it, the apostles and prophets preach the truth a lot more often than many people believe they do. But that is a personal decision. Just don't use your position as a teacher in a Church-owned university to tell Latter-day Saints that Elder Nelson is just plain wrong about evolution. Regarding the pre-1978 priesthood restriction, please take a look at this blog discussion.
"Just don't use your position as a teacher in a Church-owned university to tell Latter-day Saints that Elder Nelson is just plain wrong about evolution."
Wait. I'm confused. Don't the classes Peck is required to teach at BYU, and the curriculum he's required to teach within those classes, directly contradict what Elder Nelson (and for that matter, Elder Packer) have said regarding evolution? So if a student comes up to Peck and says, "but Elder Nelson said this..." should Peck really say, "you know what, everything I taught you in this evolution course at the church's university is false, and I'm just teaching it so the university can be accredited"? Or should he say, "Elder Nelson is welcome to his own opinion, but his personal opinion is wrong"? What's the more honest approach?
Tim: It's not that complicated. Peck was hired to teach science. He should stick to that. If a student asks during class about Elder Nelson's general conference remark, Peck should refer that discussion to the religion department. If a student asks privately about Elder Nelson's general conference remark, I'd say Peck can give his opinion privately. But revelations and the restoration aren't science and don't belong in the science curriculum at any university.
Gary,
If Peck is supposed to direct students to the religion department for answers to questions about Elder Nelson's comments, wouldn't that make his comments only religiously applicable, and not scientifically? If so, then why do you take issue with Peck saying that Elder Nelson is wrong is his opinion about evolution, when he (Peck) is teaching scientifically?
Stanton S: Elder Nelson's religious preaching is not science. I don't take issue with anyone thinking or believing Elder Nelson is wrong about evolution. I take issue with Church members teaching that Elder Nelson is wrong about evolution, especially at BYU. Science has no opinion about Elder Nelson or what he preaches. Peck should stick to science.
Then, following your logic, shouldn't Elder Nelson stick to religion?
And (as previously discussed), Peck is supposed to teach about human evolution at BYU. Doesn't this inherently mean that he is teaching that Elder Nelson is wrong, regardless of whether he explicitly says it or leaves it to be implied?
What if the student's question is more specific--say, along the lines of "Elder Nelson says dogs haven't evolved from a non-dog ancestor. Have they?"
The scientific answer is obvious--yes, they have. Should Peck answer the question honestly and say "yes, dogs have evolved from a non-dog ancestor"? even though that would be refuting Elder Nelson's statement? Or should he say, "Go ask the religion department"?
Stanton S: The apostles and prophets represent God, and God can speak on any subject. We can't restrict them from preaching contrary to science; that restriction would have to come from God. Peck is supposed to teach the science of human evolution and it doesn't matter whether science contradicts Elder Nelson, as long as Peck teaches science. If it is implied that Nelson is wrong, each student is left to individually decide what to believe. But when Peck says evolution is a revelation, it essentially elevates him to the status of one who teaches revelations to the people. That's not science.
Tim: If the student asks about the evolution of dogs, the correct scientific answer would be, Yes. Dogs evolved. But it would be a mistake to claim that answer was revealed by God. And it would be a mistake to make a poster with Elder Nelson's comment and tell the class it contradicts God's revelation to science.
f the student asks about the evolution of dogs, the correct scientific answer would be, Yes. Dogs evolved. But it would be a mistake to claim that answer was revealed by God.
This doesn't solve the problem. In fact, the student would still be left wondering why the few unsupported statements by a certain General Authority run directly counter to such a basic scientific view. I presume you would say the scientific view must simply be incorrect. Then why are these same General Authorities allowing such frequent instruction, which is presumed to be false by you and a select few General Authorities?
Gary, could you elaborate on what you mean when you say "it will most assuredly come back to haunt Steven L. Peck"? In what way will this "haunt" him? Do you anticipate him changing his mind about human evolution and thus be haunted by his past statements on the topic? Do you foresee his dismissal from the University because of this teaching?
.
Quickmere Graham: Click this link to byu.edu and see who is currently serving on the Church Board of Education and BYU Board of Trustees. Notice the name of Russell M. Nelson. You might also be interested in this blog discussion about whether BYU evolution courses constitute an endorsement of evolution by the Church.
.
Anonymous: In the last paragraph of his post, Peck said,
-------------- quote --------------
"Do not so easily dismiss the power of its findings in order to fuel your political and economic agendas. It will come back to haunt you. And you are missing some of the revelations promised as part of the restoration."
-------------- end quote --------------
Whatever Peck meant by "haunt," that is how my own use of "haunt" was intended for him. I had no particular meaning in mind. It was just a ping pong play, hitting the ball back to him.
Regarding the dismissal of BYU faculty, you'd have to ask the Board of Trustees because I have no idea.
.
Three months ago, Jeff G led a long discussion about "Why You Can't Agree With R. Gary." I bring that up only because three months later I'm still the same blogger. Nothing has changed.
Yet, today, SteveP responded to my current post (this one) with "How I teach the ways of science at the Y."
Why is it, I wonder, that Jeff G and SteveP see two very different people, yet they are both talking about me?
Gary,
While I think the strength of your position is much stronger than most readers recognize, there is one issue which has never say well with me:
What about those who are driven out of the church when the incompatibility between NDBF and evolution is finally driven home?
I know your intent is to bring people to Christ, but it does seem that your putting too much weight on cogs which don't seem to power too much of the salvation machine may have the opposite effect.
Jeff G: I can't tell you how much I appreciate your level-headed approach to these issues. Your comment here and the one on SteveP's blog are both appreciated. I have just two thoughts:
1. Re: "putting too much weight on cogs which don't seem to power too much of the salvation machine"
I believe NDBF powers more than you recognize. For example, in Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Harold B. Lee, the Introduction to Chapter 3 begins with this paragraph:
-------------- quote --------------
President Harold B. Lee taught that we must understand the Fall of man in order to understand the Savior’s Atonement, which overcame the effects of the Fall and made possible eternal life. He said, “How vital … it is to understand the Fall, making necessary the Atonement—hence the mission of the Lord Jesus Christ.”
-------------- end quote --------------
And what must we understand about the Fall before we can understand the Savior’s Atonement? Here is one thing Harold B. Lee thought we needed to understand:
-------------- quote --------------
Besides the Fall having had to do with Adam and Eve, causing a change to come over them, that change affected all human nature, all of the natural creations, all of the creation of animals, plants—all kinds of life were changed. The earth itself became subject to death. … How it took place no one can explain, and anyone who would attempt to make an explanation would be going far beyond anything the Lord has told us. But a change was wrought over the whole face of the creation, which up to that time had not been subject to death. From that time henceforth all in nature was in a state of gradual dissolution until mortal death was to come, after which there would be required a restoration in a resurrected state.
-------------- end quote --------------
2. Re: "What about those who are driven out of the church when the incompatibility between NDBF and evolution is finally driven home?"
I appreciate the tone of your question. When you asked about this six years ago, you were a little less tactful. Anyway, what I used to think was an adequate response to that question has been on my sidebar for seven years: "When confronted by evidence in the rocks below, rely on the witness of the heavens above." (Boyd K. Packer.) However, the fact that you've just brought it up again tells me that's not an adequate answer. So let me try a different approach.
-------------- quote --------------
Elder David A. Bednar of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles tells of a returned missionary who had been dating a special young woman. He cared for her a great deal and was seriously considering making a proposal of marriage to her. This was after President Gordon B. Hinckley had counseled women to wear only one set of earrings. This young man waited patiently for a while, said Elder Bednar, for the young woman to remove the extra set of earrings she wore. But it did not happen. For this and other reasons, with heavy heart, he stopped dating her.
In relating this experience, Elder Bednar said: “I presume that some of you … may believe the young man was too judgmental or that basing an eternally important decision, even in part, upon such a supposedly minor issue is silly or fanatical. Perhaps you are bothered because the example focuses upon a young woman who failed to respond to prophetic counsel instead of upon a young man. [But may I just point out to you that] the issue was not earrings!” (As told by Lance B. Wickman in Ensign, April 2010.)
-------------- end quote --------------
The issue was not earrings, it was her willingness (or lack thereof) to rely on the witness of the heavens above.
To summarize, I see NDBF being a bigger cog than you do, and no matter what its size, the witness of the heavens above confirms to me its truthfulness in relation to the Atonement.
The 1909 statement was quoted without including the crucial phrase: "whether we take this to mean the spirit or the body, or both". The 1909 statement cannot be properly interpreted without it.
Anonymous: Cannot be properly interpreted by whom?
You take 13 words out of a 2,700 word statement and claim they are "the crucial phrase."
By what authority do you make that claim?
One of the most science friendly apostles of this dispensation interpreted the origin of man this way:
-------------- quote --------------
"Man is the child of God, he is born heir to boundless possibilities, the inheritor of the eternities to come. Among mortal beings, the law holds true that the posterity of each shall be after his kind. The child therefore may become like unto the parent; and man may yet attain the rank of godship. He is born in the lineage of Deity, not in the posterity of the brute creation."
-------------- end quote --------------
James E. Talmage correctly understood the 1909 statement. He properly and authoritatively affirmed its rejection of the theory that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation, and he did it without "the crucial phrase."
Gary,
Let me see if I can apply your reasoning to another subject.
The LDS faith is not defined by fashion, it is defined by priesthood leaders. And for more than 50 years, various General Authorities, stake presidents, and bishops have talked about facial hair in official settings. The result? Church published authoritative statements about facial hair speak unanimously against the idea that beards are an acceptable means of fashion. I don't take issue with anyone thinking or believing that a church authority is wrong about facial hair. I don’t take issue with anyone growing a beard. I do take issue with Church members declaring that the Church is ok with their facial hair.
Did I do it right?
I can definitely appreciate your attempts to protect religion from science based attacks as well as those well-intentioned people who might inadvertently aid and abet the enemy. However, when they accuse you of leading members out of the church, they are definitely playing by your rules.
I worry that you harp on and force issues which the brethren do not unanimously harp on and force. I suspect that they do not do so for the very reasons that Steve et al. mention.
I think you are right to step in when people attempt to misrepresent church leadership. These actions will almost always have positive and negative effects in different readers. I just hope that you're really trying to maximize the good while also minimizing the bad.
Stanton S: Mostly I like your comment. But of course I would say it just a little differently.
I don't take issue with anyone thinking or believing that Church leaders are wrong about growing beards. But I do take issue with Church members teaching that facial hair is fine and that leaders who say otherwise are wrong.
A calling or teaching position in the Church is not a personal soap box; it is not the appropriate place to disagree with Church leaders.
There is a difference between declaring one's belief about one's own beard, and declaring that the Church is perfectly okay with beards. The man who wears a beard to Church obviously has his reasons, and if he explains those reasons, that's one thing. But encouraging every man to grow a beard is a different thing entirely. Your comment seems to address the former, while my version addresses the latter.
.
Jeff G: We've come a long way since 2006 when you considered my blog to be one of the most potent anti-mormon sites on the web. Something has changed. I now look forward to your visits. Thank you for your comment. You have obviously given this matter serious thought. Now it's my turn.
<< Home