Evolutionary Foolishness
Lincoln Cannon recently made me aware of Our God Truly Is God by Elder Douglas Callister of the LDS church. He devoted a portion of his talk to the subject of evolution.
The LDS church is officially agnostic regarding organic evolution, at least according to a 1909 First Presidency message reprinted in the February 2002 issue of the Ensign, the official church magazine. Yet I have never read a single article in the Ensign in favor of organic evolution. It’s much easier to find those which are opposed to it, Callister’s being one.
Naturalism’s explanations of the origins of life and the miracle of our bodies often appear convoluted when placed side by side with the simple truths of the revealed word and divine scripture.
Evolution is complex, certainly more complex than bumper sticker creationism: “Big Bang Theory: God said it, and BANG! It happened!” Simple ideas don’t equate to true ideas. Just because evolution can be relatively hard to understand, that doesn’t justify seeking easier to understand theories which don’t reflect our experiences well. As Einstein is often paraphrased, “Theories should be as simple as possible, but no simpler.”
With its 107 million cells, connected to the brain by over 1 million neurons, the eye is more perfect than any camera ever invented. It caused Charles Darwin to humbly admit, “That the eye with all its inimitable contrivances … could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest sense.â€
It is a sign of Darwin’s scientific honesty that he admitted the existence of data which seemed to him to contradict his own theory. Callister ignores that scientists have evidence which suggests that the eye was in fact evolved.
The Psalmist wrote, “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God†(Psalm 53:1). Such a foolish disbeliever ought to look at his hands. Seventy muscles contribute to hand movements. Much of the rest of the body is devoted to optimizing the complex function of the hand. There are no muscles in the fingers. The sole purpose of the forearm, its muscles and bones, is to move and position the hand.
I’ll excuse Callister’s playground taunts on the ground that he’s just mirroring the questionable behavior exemplified in his sacred texts.
However, he makes a fundamental assumption that all highly complex systems must have a designer. This assumption is understandable because most complex systems in our everyday lives (e.g. cars, computers, and Congress) have human designers. There is no evidence, however, that this relationship holds for natural systems, eyes and hands notwithstanding. His argument boils down to something like “I just can’t understand how complex human beings evolved without the intervention of a Designer”, an argument from either incredulity or ignorance. His inability to accept evolution is probably partially rooted in a lack of familiarity with the details of evolutionary theory.
Sir Isaac Newton is reported to have said: “In the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of God’s existence.â€
Newton was a very interesting genius. His contribution to our understanding of natural laws cannot be overestimated. Yet he had his own blind spots. He spent a significant portion of his time pursuing alchemy, a pseudoscience on par with astrology. This illustrates why we shouldn’t appeal to authorities in order to base our beliefs. I wonder if Callister would give equal credence to Newton’s views on alchemy as he seems to give to his thoughts on the thumb.
One of my brothers is a physician. During medical school he was assigned to study anatomy in companionship with an agnostic. Their education eventually required that the two of them carefully examine and dissect a cadaver. They studied the incredibly complex yet harmonious systems of the body.… My brother and his friend became silent as they contemplated the miracle they were examining. Sensing the moment was right, my brother challenged: “Coincidence is a marvelous thing, isn’t it?†His agnostic classmate responded, “You win.â€
This anecdote might make the creationist feel good to see the opposition conquered, but it also shows me that Callister doesn’t properly understand evolutionary theory. To call it “coincidence” demonstrates that he believes evolution to be a purely random process. It isn’t. No one aside from creationists believes that evolution is purely random.
This earth departs from its orbit of the sun by only one-ninth of an inch (2.82 mm) every 18 miles (29 km). If, instead, it changed by one-tenth of an inch (2.54 mm) every 18 miles, we would all freeze to death. If it changed by one-eighth of an inch (3.18 mm), we would all be incinerated. Did this all happen by accident?
I don’t know how true this is, but this statement seems a little misleading because the Earth travels 18 miles every second. That distance is therefore an insignificant part of the Earth’s orbit (i.e. 1 part in 31.5 million). Any small deviation over that tiny portion of the orbit would accumulate to huge deviations over the course of a year.
But allowing that what he says may be true, does this show that there is a Divine Designer? What are the odds that a habitable planet would happen at random around the average star? To be overly generous, let’s just guess that the odds are one in one billion billion (i.e. one star in every 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 stars has a habitable planet). There are believed to be 1021 stars in the universe. That still leaves 1000 habitable planets in a universe based on pure, dumb luck.
Questioning why we happen to be on one of those habitable planets is like a puddle questioning how it happens to live in a hole that seems tailor-made to fit its shape precisely.
The doubter requires too much of us when he asks us to believe that the miracles of eyes and hands and DNA and order in the universe all happened by chance. The passage of time, even long intervals of time, is not a “cause†and provides no answers without an intelligent designer.
Further evidence that he doesn’t understand evolution.
It is not possible to contemplate the immeasurable vacuum and purposelessness that would exist in our lives if He were not there. We would regret the passing of every day and the passing of every loved one, knowing that neither time nor relationships could be extended. We would approach the autumn and then the winter years of life with crescendoing fear. Every day of our lives we should thank Him that He is there and that this life is not all there is.
It is possible. It is true that contemplating a world without a loving God can make our time with loved ones more precious and death more dreadful. I want to live in a world where chocolate makes me lose weight and the opposite sex is powerless to resist my charms. Too bad that’s not the world I live in.
Tags: creationism, evolution, LDS, Mormonism, science
![[Earth Flag]](wp-content/images/earth-flag.png){kind=small}
![[Gadsden Flag]](wp-content/images/gadsden.png){kind=small}
![[Old Glory]](wp-content/images/old-glory.png){kind=small}
January 2, 2008 @ 5:52 pm
Callister makes a huge mistake when he asserts that without a god one necessarily approaches death with “crescendoing fear”. In the first place, just because x is his means for overcoming y does not mean x is the only means for overcoming y. In the second place, I seem to recall at least one study which suggested religious people are more fearful of death than non-religious people.
As for his Creationism, I’ve found that it’s most often useless to try to argue a person out of Creationism. If they have made an informed decision to believe evolution false, they have made a decision to be irrational. The issue then is not whether you can convince them of evolution, but whether you can convince them to be rational.
January 3, 2008 @ 3:08 pm
It’s even worse than that. You first have to convince them that they are irrational. The human mind is maddeningly proficient at making its beliefs feel like good sense even when they’re full of shit. Pride also factors in. People don’t want to even contemplate the idea that they’ve been duped in such a big way.
January 3, 2008 @ 3:09 pm
Oh, and I don’t know about that study on the fear of death, but it seems from my experience that religious folk widely overestimate the godless’ fear of death.
January 15, 2008 @ 10:07 pm
I have an essay online for downloading that discusses how evolution and the Fall of Adam can be compatible with each other. At the end of the essay is a discussion of digital organisms that perform true evolution and have come up with complex digital organisms. The digital organisms are computer programs but are not simulations. True mutations and evolving of the digital organisms occur. Yes, the eye is complex, but because evolution is not just random changes to an organism, evolution via mutations to genetic material and selection of the changes that favor continuation of the new organism can lead to complex organisms.
For those interested in my essay, go to
http://www.mormonsite.org/sciencereligion/evolutionadam.html
January 16, 2008 @ 11:35 am
Interesting.
Executive summary: Evolution took place after the Fall of Adam with Adam and Eve waiting patiently for their earthly tabernacles to be formed through natural selection.
I assume that you’ve done this in an effort to reconcile the evidence for evolution with the views of the Mormon neo-orthodoxy à la Joseph Fielding Smith and James Talmage. Specifically, I’m thinking of their doctrine that death did not become operative until after the Fall. Perhaps you addressed this in your essay (I confess to only skimming it briefly), but does this make the Garden of Eden a purely spiritual creation? How does that hold up to the various Creation accounts in the Standard Works and the temple Endowment?
Also, how does this hold up to Mormon teachings prior to the rise of the neo-orthodoxy? For example, Brigham Young taught:
This sounds more like panspermia than evolution beginning with abiogenesis (i.e. formation from the dust of the earth).
January 17, 2008 @ 5:16 am
Hi Jonathan,
I assume that you’ve done this in an effort to reconcile the evidence for evolution with the views of the Mormon neo-orthodoxy à la Joseph Fielding Smith and James Talmage. Specifically, I’m thinking of their doctrine that death did not become operative until after the Fall.
Actually, I did it in an effort to reconcile the evidence for evolution and my own views. General Authorities today are careful to not speculate about things not explained in the scriptures, but in the early days of the church and up into the 20th century, GA felt free to comment on things not clearly taught in the scriptures. Unless comments by GA agree with the scriptures or are official statements by the President that are meant to be church doctrine, I consider the comments to be folklore, and I ignore them. I thus have never paid much attention to the views of JFS about the creation. If anyone is interested in why I take this position about folklore and the GA, go to my site about parallels between science and religion and search on the folklore category. My position on folklore in the church has helped me to avoid a lot of grief about the “mysteries”.
http://convergencesciencereligion.org/
does this make the Garden of Eden a purely spiritual creation?
If you’re using the word “spiritual” in the context of spirit matter, then no, the GoE was not a purely spiritual creation. It was a physical creation but a creation in which there was no death. I explain in the essay my reason for believing there was no death in the GoE.I think the scriptures are pretty clear about Adam bringing death into the world.
How does that hold up to the various Creation accounts in the Standard Works and the temple Endowment?
I think my hypothesis holds up well with the scriptures and with the temple Endowment. Both of those sources talk about the earth becoming mortal after Adam & Eve partook of the fruit, but those sources don’t say how long it took for the earth to become mortal. Evolution requires millions of years, so my belief in evolution doesn’t disagree with those sources. It just fills in where those sources are silent. The one thing that some people might think is unusual in my hypothesis is that I speculate that “time” in the GoE was different than time in mortality. Thus, what seemed like a relatively short time for the earth to become mortal could have been the same as the millions of years needed by evolution. Those interested in my thoughts about “time” can go to my web site on science & religion and search on the time category.
Also, how does this hold up to Mormon teachings prior to the rise of the neo-orthodoxy? For example, Brigham Young taught:
He [Adam] was the person who brought the animals and the seeds from other planets to this world, and brought a wife with him and stayed here. You may read and believe what you please as to what is found written in the Bible. Adam was made from the dust of an earth, but not from the dust of this earth. He was made as you and I are made, and no person was ever made upon any other principle.
BY’s statement about Adam bringing animals and seeds with him is folklore, the same as his statement about moon men. Charles Darwin didn’t publish his works until the latter part of the 19th century, and BY didn’t understand evolution. To him, having Adam & Eve bring animals and seeds made sense. Even today, GA don’t understand evolution, as you brought out in your comments about Elder Callister. And, it doesn’t make sense to GA that evolution would have existed in an earth that was created without death. They miss the point that since the earth became mortal after Adam & Eve partook of the fruit, there is a nice place for evolution to have been used by God, after the partaking of the fruit.
January 17, 2008 @ 10:21 am
I thought I’d pass on one more link, about my view of the world
http://convergencesciencereligion.org/2007/10/two-paradigms.html
I look at the world from two paradigms: religion and science. Creationists, IDers, theologians such as Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie look at the world from the religion paradigm. They are unable to see the science paradigm, and they try to bend science to fit their religious view. On the other hand, many scientists are unable to see the religious view, and they try to bend religion to fit the scientific view. I try to see both paradigms and to switch my views depending on whom I’m talking with. In the link given above I refer to my wearing two “hats”.
Jonathan, sorry to have hijacked this post to give the link. The issue of evolution, though, is related to the concept of two paradigms, so maybe my hijacking isn’t quite as bad as I was thinking
January 17, 2008 @ 10:41 am
Two thoughts:
While discarding statements made by GAs when they conflict with what you understand from the scriptures is probably the path to sanity, it suffers from a bootstrapping problem: you can’t justify it scripturally. In fact, it is contrary to the scriptures.
Of course one might cite Moroni 10:3–5 to say that every person has a right to the confirmation of the Elders’ words, but then you have D&C 28:2 which asserts that the Prophet’s revelations trump all others. Even personal revelation? Anyway, there is a doctrinal inconsistency with asserting the primacy of scripture which itself asserts that the Elders speak scripture.
Also, how you interpret the scriptures is colored by the views of the neo-orthodoxy. All scripture requires interpretation. Mormon theology has undergone radical revisions since the inception of the church. Alma 11:28–29, 38–40, 44 states pretty clearly the doctrine of the Trinity. It is only through the revision of the neo-orthodoxy (embodied in the views of James Talmage) that Mormons contort that scripture to mean something that it isn’t plainly saying.
Regarding the Garden of Eden, if it was a physical but immortal creation, that only delays that question. How then were the living, physical beings in the Garden of Eden created? If God made them some other way than evolution, then why was evolution required here, outside the Garden?
January 17, 2008 @ 2:21 pm
While discarding statements made by GAs when they conflict with what you understand from the scriptures is probably the path to sanity, it suffers from a bootstrapping problem: you can’t justify it scripturally. In fact, it is contrary to the scriptures.
…whatsoever they [i.e. those ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood and sent out to preach the gospel] shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation. (D&C 68:4)
That scripture doesn’t say that everything said by Priesthood holders say is scripture. It says that the statements inspired by the Holy Ghost are scripture. There are LDS who believe that all statements from GA are scripture, but those folks, I believe, are painting themselves into a corner, because it is easy from LDS church history to show that there were differences of opinion between GA. Probably one of the most famous disagreements between GA was the disagreement about the origin of man between Elder Joseph Fielding Smith of the Twelve and Elder B. H. Roberts of the First Council of th Seventy.
As I discuss in my blog
http://convergencesciencereligion.org/2008/01/religious-truth-revelation-or-folklore_10.html
http://convergencesciencereligion.org/2008/01/religious-truth-revelation-or-folklore.html
I grew up in Southern Utah believing everything said by a GA was scripture, but after I encountered differences between JFS and BHR, I realized that either they both were wrong or one or both were speaking opinion. I then discovered a statement by John Taylor saying that the Church is not accountable for the statement of any elder but was only accountable by what the scriptures said. I added to Elder Taylor’s statement that the church was accountable for statements of th President of the Church that are intended to be the official position of the Church. This is the way I decide what I will believe. Each of us has to decide this for himself or herself.
but then you have D&C 28:2 which asserts that the Prophet’s revelations trump all others. Even personal revelation?
D&C 28:2 states that Joseph Smith was appointed to receive revelations for the church. The scripture uses the phrase “in this church” but I think it is clear from context that that verse is speaking of Joseph Smith being the prophet of the church, as President Hinckley is today, and receiving revelations for the church. I don’t think the phrase “in this church” means that none of can receive personal revelation. Otherwise, the church wouldn’t encourage us to pray for inspiration about our lives and our family activities, about religious truth via James1:5 and Moroni 10:4, etc.
Alma 11:28–29, 38–40, 44 states pretty clearly the doctrine of the Trinity.
Actually, Amulek wasn’t teaching the Trinity, he was teaching the Godhead as viewed by those under the Law of Moses. Yes, those verses can be interpreted in the context of the Trinity, but they can also be interpreted in context of the Godhead as taught by the LDS church. Jesus Christ was a separate member of the Godhead. He was Jehovah and was the God worshiped by those in the Law of Moses. He created the heavens and the earth and was thus the Father of heaven and earth and all things. This was clearly explained in a letter from President Joseph F. Smith & his counselors in1902 or some date close to that.
Regarding the Garden of Eden, if it was a physical but immortal creation, that only delays that question. How then were the living, physical beings in the Garden of Eden created? If God made them some other way than evolution, then why was evolution required here, outside the Garden?
Evolution was, I believe, part of the creation of our mortal world, but I have no idea how the creation occurred of the immortal world that included the GoE. The scriptures don’t go into much detail about that creation. I assume the creation of the immortal world involved different laws of nature since the matter used in that creation was different than the matter used in our mortal world. Also, keep in mind that the brief description of the creation given in Genesus & the PoGP is from a religious paradigm and not from a scientific paradigm.
At this point of time, we don’t have enough information to allow us to merge the two paradigms. Some people will try to force-fit the two paradigms together, but I prefer to keep them separate for now and to wait for more revelations from God and more information from science. I accept my interpretation of the scriptures about an immortal world, and I accept current concepts from science as being the best the scientists have to offer at this time. My essay about reconciliation of the Fall of Adam and evolution is my best guess at this time of what might have happened. Of course, we each have to decide for ourselves how we want to handle the two paradigms.
January 22, 2008 @ 12:08 pm
That scripture doesn’t say that everything said by Priesthood holders say is scripture. It says that the statements inspired by the Holy Ghost are scripture.… This is the way I decide what I will believe. Each of us has to decide this for himself or herself.
I agree in principle that the church requires each member to find out for themselves, but what I want to get at is that there is no “official” doctrine. It’s all folklore. Every statement ever in Mormonism is subject to obsolescence. Mormon doctrine is creedless, lacking a central document that can be pointed to to resolve doctrinal questions. The LDS Standard Works are insufficient for this purpose. Accepting that Mormon doctrine is a zeitgeist makes sense of the confusion.
The reason I want point that out is that you appear to have made decisions about what to belief based in part on what official LDS doctrine is even though there is no such thing. For example, the idea of that there was no death before the fall isn’t official doctrine despite what the Standard Works appear to say. There is enough ambiguity there to allow for other interpretations. Lacking an official doctrine, I ask myself “Why bother?”
January 22, 2008 @ 10:26 pm
Mormon doctrine is defined by the scriptures and by official statements of the President that are intended to be doctrine. Yes, some verses of scripture are ambiguous and are open for different interpretations, but the basic principles of the Gospel are clearly defined by the scriptures. It is important is that one interpret the scriptures in the context of all of the scriptures rather than taking individual verses by themselves. By doing this, the verses that are ambiguous become clear.
You seem to want doctrine to be explicitly defined in such clear ways that everyone will agree on the meanings. I’m thankful that Mormon doctrine isn’t defined in that way. God doesn’t want, I believe, a church of robots. He wants a church of thinking, prayerful people who seek the inspiration of the Spirit in applying the scriptures to their daily life. Having Mormon doctrine defined in the explicit way that you seem to want would make us all robots. No thinking, no prayer, no seeking the Spirit. Just read and memorize the creeds and do what we’re told. Everybody do things the same way as defined by the creeds. No creativity and no flexibility to apply the teachings of the church according to the individual needs of us, our families, and those we serve in the church.
You said, ‘Lacking an official doctrine, I ask myself “Why bother?‒ I’ll tell you why I bother. Jesus Christ is my mentor, my ideal. I’m trying to be more like him in my personal life and in my relationships with others. I’m trying to be obedient to God, not just for the sake of obedience but for love. For my love of God and for my love of others. For example, I accepted a call to be a Home Teacher, and I currently have three families. I visit my families each month, not because I want to be obedient to God but because I love the families and want to help them. I serve because I love my families, and in so doing I’m obedient to God. My motivation is love not obedience. To me, obedience is a stepping stone to love. I realize that many other LDS will serve because their motivation is obedience, and that is fine. We’re all different and approach the Gospel differently. My needs are different than the needs of other LDS. The growth that I need through service to God and to His children is different than the growth that others need. If all of our teachings and principles were defined by explicit creeds, we would all be lumped into the same bottle, so to speak. Instead, we are all in our own bottles and we all have our own approach to the Gospel and how we apply the Gospel to our lives. As LDS we have a common set of principles of the Gospel, but we are free to apply them as we are led by the Spirit. Suppose, for example, that our creed said we had to Home Teach, teach Sunday School, or what ever our callings are to be obedient to God. There would be a strong tendency to forget about loving people and to do things because we’re required to do it. In a way we would be like the Pharisees, following the letter of the law but missing the true meaning of things.
If you study the writings and sermons of the General Authorities over the years, you will find that they agree on the basic tenets of the Gospel: faith, repentance, baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost, service to others, prayer, fasting, following the promptings of the Spirit, etc. The problem that I see with folklore and individual opinions isn’t with the basic teachings of the church. The problem is when people add meanings that aren’t in the scriptures in attempts to explain things that aren’t fully explained in the scriptures.
January 23, 2008 @ 10:11 am
First, let me apologize for the tone of my last comment. I was not feeling my best yesterday, so I didn’t muster my usual courtesy. (Why is everyone laughing?) I hope that you didn’t feel personally attacked.
Mormon doctrine is defined by the scriptures and by official statements of the President that are intended to be doctrine.
Is that view stated anywhere in the scriptures or an official statement by the President (even more properly a joint statement of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve ratified as part of the Standard Works in General Conference by a sustaining vote)? I hope you see the circularity that I face when I try to pin down official doctrine.
My other question is how do we know which statements are intended to be doctrine? What signifies the difference?
Yes, some verses of scripture are ambiguous and are open for different interpretations, but the basic principles of the Gospel are clearly defined by the scriptures. It is important is that one interpret the scriptures in the context of all of the scriptures rather than taking individual verses by themselves. By doing this, the verses that are ambiguous become clear.
I still have trouble with scriptures that flat contradict each other. Contradictions can be usually resolved through synthesis in the mind of the believer, but only through speculative interpretation and experiences which we interpret as revelation.
You seem to want doctrine to be explicitly defined in such clear ways that everyone will agree on the meanings. I’m thankful that Mormon doctrine isn’t defined in that way. God doesn’t want, I believe, a church of robots.
I doubt that an official creed would turn its believers into robots. There are plenty of creedal religions with believers who retain their autonomy to believe and act as they see fit. For example, consider an LDS creed accepted into scripture which might state:
I don’t think something along those lines would create robots. What it would do is end the confusion surrounding what is and is not official doctrine. As it stands, there is no scriptural reason to lay aside the statements of Brigham Young regarding Adam and Eve. Being from the President of the Church in General Conference, I can make a case that they are official statements and represent what the Prophet believed was revealed truth. It seems that the only people making the case that these shouldn’t be official doctrine are those who are uncomfortable with what he said, or simply don’t accept this doctrine.
I understand the desire to justify rejecting Brigham Young’s words, but put yourself in the shoes of those who study the doctrines of the church from the outside. You know what to reject because you are immersed in the culture of the church. The outsiders, lacking this insight into the church, look to find official doctrine. There is no official source of doctrine to look to. The scriptures are insufficient because they teach contradictory things. You know what LDS are currently supposed to believe, but the outsider lacks your cultural knowledge which holds the interpretations of how to resolve contradictions.
If you study the writings and sermons of the General Authorities over the years, you will find that they agree on the basic tenets of the Gospel: faith, repentance, baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost, service to others, prayer, fasting, following the promptings of the Spirit, etc.
I realize that this doesn’t have the force of scripture, but it makes good sense:
If we can’t nail down the nature of the Godhead through the scriptures without private interpretation, then we can’t “exercise faith in God, unto life and salvation”. Looking at 2 Nephi 31:21, Alma 11:44, and John 4:24 compared to D&C 130:22, how does an outsider determine what the LDS belief about what God is without referring to sources outside of the scriptural canon?
For that matter, how does a believer come to resolve this conflict about the basic nature of God? If an LDS believer is left to their own devices on this, then some are liable to exercise faith in the wrong kind of God. If a believer must rely on personal revelation, then something very basic about the nature of God remains unresolved in the LDS canon.
One more example of official LDS material which isn’t scriptural: the temple ceremonies. By the standard that you proposed, the content of the temple ceremonies might be folklore. How can I tell that they contain official doctrine?
January 23, 2008 @ 11:21 am
Jonathan,
You’ve made some good points and have given good reasons for a Mormon creed that would clearly explain Mormon doctrine. The scriptures do have a lot of ambiguity, and for that reason I said it was important to study the verses in context with the whole gospel and not just take individual verses by themselves. For example, you gave three Biblical scriptures that state the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one. There are also verses that state/imply that the three are separate, such as Jesus’ baptism, and by taking the verses in context of the whole gospel, we realize the oneness is not of person but is of purpose and unity. This is an example that the scriptures do need interpretation because of ambiguity contained in them, and I think your concern about this is justified. The Articles of Faith were written by Joseph Smith in answer to a query about Mormon beliefs, but they also have a lot of ambiguity in them as well as not covering all aspects of Mormon doctrine.
I appreciate your suggestion that I look at this from the viewpoint of a non-LDS. I am familiar with Mormon culture and beliefs, and that familiarity does shape my interpretations of doctrine. Your comments have helped me realize a little bit more the dilemma that outsiders see when they view the Mormon church.
I think it would be helpful to have a comprehensive Mormon creed that attempted to clarify what Mormons believe, but I wonder if such a document would be possible. I think it would probably end up being a large book full of legalese language that would be difficult to read. We already have a type of “creed” in the form of the many books that have been written by LDS authors to explain what we believe and why we believe it. These books, of course, are not “official” since they were written by individual members and represent only the opinions of the authors, but they do present a pretty good view of Mormon doctrine when one takes the commonalities between them and ignores the differences.
January 25, 2008 @ 1:49 pm
Jonathan, here is a statement from lds.org about Approaching Mormon Doctrine. I don’t know who wrote it or what approvals it went through before it was put on the church web site. I expect you’ve already read it, but I thought I’d post the link for others who might read our conversation.
January 25, 2008 @ 2:32 pm
Thanks for the link. That is an important document. I usually joke that it doesn’t meet its own standard for official doctrine, but you take what you can get.