.jpg)
The 1844 succession crisis
For six months after the death of Joseph Smith, different factions fought for control of the LDS Church. Sidney Rigdon, Brigham Young, and James Strang, among others, claimed to be the rightful successor to the church. The church eventually split apart. Brigham Young happened to gain the most followers, and his faction became the modern LDS church.
A much less dramatic, but interesting, divergence seems to be happening today.
A recent episode of the Mormon Expression podcast interviewed Jason "Dr. Shades," the creator of MormonInformation.com. Specifically, they discussed his concept of "Internet Mormon" versus "Chapel Mormon" and how there seems to be a growing theological distinction between the average LDS member sitting in the pews, and Mormon apologists who are often found on the Internet defending their faith against critics.
After frequenting many discussion boards and participating in many debates over the years, it's easy to see this diverging trend, something Jason suggests is akin to the emergence of two different religions.
An interesting example of this occurred in the comments of an earlier article about Noah's Flood. When I mentioned the idea that some Mormons consider the flood to have been a small, local event, commenter Incognito said: "I am a 3rd generation Mormon and I have NEVER heard this...everyone knows it was a great flood."
I directed him to the FAIR article that offers some reasons for believing in a local flood, as well as a Mormon apologetic discussion board where Mormons were debating that very topic. Incognito responded with: "I have heavily studied LDS doctrine my whole life and this is just some stupid theory by overzealous prideful in knowledge Mormons who are off their rocker"
Chapel Mormons, Jason argues, are apt to be more fundamentalist and literal in their beliefs, a position supported by scripture and church leaders. Internet Mormons, on the other hand, are more likely to grant errors or biases in scripture and leaders in order to more easily accept modern science or to reject ethically questionable statements and behavior from church leaders.
For example, when Brigham Young said that black skin was a punishment from God and that those in an interracial marriage should be put to death, Mormons have a choice to make. He was either speaking as a prophet of God, or he was expressing racist views that were common at the time.
Chapel Mormons defend Young by saying that we do not always know why God commands the things that he does - we should simply have faith that it was the right thing at the time. And besides, who are we to question God's ways?
Internet Mormons instead describe Young as a man of his time, subject to all the same prejudices and problems of everyone else. This response makes sense, but it also turns Mormonism into just another religion led and managed by human beings. The argument that these are just men expressing their opinions does more to support the critics of the church than apologists seem to realize. Yes, of course they're just men expressing their opinion.
Another good example of this diverging theology is the acceptance of evolution. Although the LDS church has taken no real official position on it, evolution is taught at BYU and church leaders have voiced thoughts supporting either side. Yet a large majority of Mormons oppose the theory.
While some Internet Mormons make an academic case for how the theory of evolution is perfectly compatible with LDS theology, the more populous Chapel Mormons simply cite scripture to show that evolution is false:
I think that we can make some sense out of the advent of dinosaurs. First, we reiterate the word of God,
And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also; nevertheless, all things were before created; but spiritually were they were created and made according to my word (Moses 3:7).
So, according to God, Adam preceded the dinosaurs. Now, that is the truth!!! If science does not agree with that statement, it only reflects on the paucity of scientific information!
Joseph Smith was permitted a question and answer session with God, and Doctrine and Covenants 77:6 is part of that interview:
What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was sealed 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.
Most read this as a clear statement that the Earth is about 7,000 years old, and Chapel Mormons tend to accept that as God's word. Internet Mormons try to harmonize the scientific reality of an ancient Earth with this verse by carefully interpreting the words "economy," "continuance," and "temporal." It turns out, if one reads it correctly, that God was only referring to the 7,000 years of this particular religious age.
Internet Mormons often suggest that the literal views of Chapel Mormons are the result of a lack of education and perhaps an inability to appreciate the use of symbolism and metaphor. Evidently, it takes scholars, linguists, and researchers to explain what God was trying to say.
Chapel Mormons, on the other hand, suggest that the liberal views of Internet Mormons are the result of a lack of faith, and they are leaning too heavily on the "word of man."
Both groups perceive that their interpretation of the religion is the most correct one and that the other is misguided. Internet Mormons believe that faith and reason should be balanced, while Chapel Mormons believe that we should "Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding."
In addition to differences about evolution, Noah's flood, and how to interpret the words of a Prophet, Jason outlines a few other disagreements often found between Internet and Chapel Mormons. Are modern Native Americans the literal descendents of Lehi? Where is the Hill Cumorah? Can living Prophets override scripture with new revelation? Does General Conference and official Church publications count as gospel? Do the teachings of the Prophet apply to everyone, or are some people exempt?
Out of this conflict rises a third budding branch of the Mormon tree, the "New Order Mormons", those who have rejected some or most of LDS doctrine but remain active and participating members. They remain members for social or cultural reasons, or because they still believe the church can offer some spiritual guidance, even if it is not "The One True Church" with a monopoly on a "restored gospel."
It's unlikely that we'll see any new schisms from any of this. New Order Mormons want to stay with the mainstream church, and apologists want to defend it, not reject it in favor of something better. Chapel Mormonism will likely shift gradually to slowly accept some of these new views or simply abandon its old views altogether. We're already beginning to see this. Church lessons will drop references to historical events or future predictions and instead just focus on Christ, raising a good family, making moral choices. By avoiding anything that would ground Mormonism in the physical world, the church can continue to grow and be "true" without challenge.
It's only when anyone bothers to study beyond what is presented in Sunday School or General Conference that these conflicts begin to arise and require either an apologetic explanation or reveal that things may not be what they seemed.
Email Jonathan: slcfreethinking@gmail.com
Read Jonathan's other articles on science and religion
Comments
Jonathan: (4)
It really doesn’t matter what these other historical groups “say” about Mormon theology or about their interpretation of Joseph Smith’s revelations, as none of them could be correct – they have no priesthood keys and cannot fit the description of the true Church given by Joseph Smith himself.
So while many groups fought for control of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, there was only one group all along that held the keys – the group led by Brigham Young and that fulfilled the Rocky Mountain prediction of Joseph Smith.
So, your hidden premise that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is just one of the many “equal” voices of Mormonism cannot be true.
Jonathan: (3)
There is only one Church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that can fit the prediction/description above. This of course is no surprise. LDS scripture requires that the Quorums of the Church govern the Church through priesthood keys as revealed by Joseph Smith in Doctrine and Covenants 107 and 112. Upon Joseph Smith’s death, the Quorum of the 12 Apostles was the governing body of the Church who alone held the keys to take the gospel to the Lamanites and establish temples in the earth. Brigham Young was the senior Apostle, or the Presiding officer of the highest remaining quorum of the Church. The other break offs have no connection to priesthood “keys” through that Quorum as required by Doctrine and Covenants 107.
Today, there are over 21 temples in the Rocky Mountains and over 40 temples that serve the “lamanites” and others in Central and South America owned by the “Utah” Church.
Jonathan: (2)
How can any of these “break offs” be considered from “Joseph Smith” when they cannot be identified with the Church that Joseph Smith said would fulfill the promises spoken of in the scriptures he revealed?
In 1844, Joseph Smith said:
“Brethren I have been very much edified and instructed in your testimonies here tonight, but I want to say to you before the Lord, that you know no more concerning the destinies of this Church and kingdom than a babe upon its mother's lap. You don't comprehend it. It is only a little handful of Priesthood you see here tonight, but this Church will fill North and South America it will fill the world. It will fill the Rocky Mountains. There will be tens of thousands of Latter-day Saints who will be gathered in the Rocky Mountains, and there they will open the door for the establishing of the Gospel among the Lamanites, who will receive the Gospel and their endowments and the blessings of God.”
Jonathan: (1)
In the title of your article, your propose the question of whether Mormon theology is diverging into new directions. Then you post an image showing many of the apostate groups that DIVERGED into a different direction, after Joseph Smith’s death. This is confused. Ill address the first premise of your article and then the second.
Your use of the term “Mormon” is fast and loose in the context of Mormon history, and now with the differing opinions of “Mormons” regarding selected topics such as a global flood, the ambiguity is worsened.
Your article attempts to make intelligent discoveries but in the end provides little evidence or support for its conclusions.
Your graphic depicts Joseph Smith as a starting point, but you fail to tell the readers that all of the “break offs” from Joseph Smith have failed.
The authorized voice of Mormonism, remains to be the voice of the First Presidency, the Quorum of the 12 Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - the exact same Church that Joseph Smith established.
The Lord set up the church organization with apostles, prophets, etc. in order to keep the people on course. Most members of the church strive to follow their counsel. However, there are many things that are not known and for which God has not revealed through his leaders. People like to speculate about these things and there are differing points of view but that does not mean that they are creating a new religion or following some new leader.
Insightful article, not enough data to be conclusive, but a good start on a viable theory. The internet as a medium of exchange does foster more introspection, but that would never be an impediment to any group that extolls the search for truth. Anyone who has sat through an LDS sacrament meeting or Catholic mass, or Pentacostal assembly, for that matter, knows that fallible human expressions and emotions can taint doctrine. No one walks out of a meeting with 100% agreement, but it doesn't mean that short of those folks with small enough hearts to get offended, that there's a significant divergence.
I take issue with just one of the items mentioned since I took a biology class at BYU and that is "Evolution". I've never met a Mormon that didn't acknowledge evolution as a natural process. HOWEVER, "evolution" is misused in the context above. What Mormons don't believe in is "Spontaneous Speciation through Evolution". Subtle semantics, BIG difference in meaning.
It is interesting how this distinction between Chapel Mormons and Internet Mormons is similar to the distinction between the sophisticated Clergy and the unsophisticated Laity in the mainline (protestant and Catholic) churches. Is this an instance of the same phenomenon occurring but without an "official" clergy? Are the Internet Mormons functioning as an unofficial clergy? If so, then it's the same old thing we have seen in religions of the past. And hence, the conclusion that there are two religions emerging is not supported.
Interesting read, but absolutely pointless. False assumptions and once again a feeble attempt at trying to stop something that cannot be stopped.
Jonathan: (4)
The Most Important Revelations from LDS Prophets
1. Is belief in and devotion to Jesus Christ in this life necessary for the most happiness in the next life? Yes.
2. Must one enter into the baptismal covenant with Jesus Christ in order to receive the maximum happiness in the next life? Yes.
3. Must a marriage be sealed by authority on earth for it to be recognized in eternity? Yes.
Jonathan: (3)
In Mormonism, the keys of the mysteries of God are administered through the Quorums of the Church, not through one man alone (DC 107). The first defense against infallibility of one man, is a cross examination of other reasonable men who also hold the keys.
The big questions are, Is there life after death for humans, is there a God, and is life a test of moral agency.
Mormonism claims that 1) there is a God, 2) there is life after death for humans, 3) that life is a test of moral agency, and 4) God has revealed commandments that we must follow in order to be happy and fulfilled in the next life.
Jonathan: (2)
Early on in Mormonism, it was revealed that prophets are not the perfect patriarchs that Orthodox Christianity has tried to make them to be. Prophets are fallible men – always were and always will be. There will be mistakes. The question is whether or not the mistakes cut them off from the authority that God has given them. In Joseph Smith’s case or in Brigham Young’s case, the answer is no. Notwithstanding their errors, God forgave them their errors and did not remove the keys of the priesthood from the quorums of the Church.
While much emphasis is placed on the senior Apostle in Mormonism, (the president of the Church), the Church is actually led by Quorums as described in Doctrine and Covenants section 107.
Jonathan: (1)
Ultimately this article is about whether it is possible for a “true” Church to exist. You cite disagreement between members of former members, insensitive comments about one’s race, or unanswered questions as reasons why there are divergent views and you seem to suggest that unanswered questions prove something about a “true” Church concept.
You also hold to a view, (although you don’t expressly say it) that men who are called by God to be prophets (spokesmen for him) must be free of errors and in a word, infallible.
I submit that it is impossible for men to be infallible prophets and that God already knows this. So how do we know what they have said is “accurate” or from God? The LDS Doctrine and Covenants 107:27 provides the answer: decisions are blessed when made by the unanimous voice of the quorums.
I would agree with Dennis' evaluation and add that the "New Order Mormons" might be more appropriately titled "cultural converts" as is commonly used when referring to the differing types of religious devotees, as mentioned above by Dennis. I would also take issue with the false dichotomy presented as regards the situation of prophet vs "a man of their time." Anyone who know even superficially the history of the LDS church knows that Joseph Smith struggled his whole life to help fellow members understand the meaning and the role of the "prophet." He is known to have said on multiple occasions something to the effect of, "when I am speaking in the name of the Lord, I am a prophet. And when I'm not, I'm not." This was usually in response to some member accusing him of playing too much with his family and kids or acting too much like "one of the guys" when he should be off doing "prophet things." Thus, this isn't a new theology at all, but rather an old tension.
The members of the LDS faith, like those of ALL faiths, represent a wide spectrum of faith, devotion, opinion and perspective. Ask any Mormon biologist what they think about evolution and they will undoubtedly give a different answer than your average Mormon seminary teacher. This has always been the case.
Think of that old saying: "For every two Jews there are three opinions."
Like Jews, Catholics and Muslims, Mormons have brains and enjoy formulating their own opinions things... to varying degrees. What has changed is that with the internet more non-Mormons are beginning to see parts spectrum that were previously hidden.
I was unaware that the church had adopted an official creed of theological relevance so as to be speculatively diverged. It is my understanding that the source of authority concerning the doctrines of salvation as promulgated by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has and always will be through direct prophetic revelation a concept of fluidity, not through theological assumptions.
Any topic of doctrine that is not deemed pertinent to the fundamentals of salvation has always been the subject of speculation and hence expressed by membership including many apparently divergent specifications - a phenomenon present even amongst the prophets, currently and historically.
Jonathan: (5)
Jonathan claims that a belief in organic Evolution and the age of the earth are problematic for Mormons.
However, in view of Joseph Smtih’s revelations on God’s eternal materiality and the nature of God’s creative processes (creative periods), God’s denunciation of immateriality and rejection of Creation ex nihilo, organic evolution and a 4.6 billion year old earth are very compatible with Mormonism.
Jonathan: (4)
Am I an internet Mormon or a chapel Mormon? I regularly attend Church in the chapel and I read extensively.
From the sounds of it, the idea of internet Mormons and chapel Mormons comes down to an interpretation of the personal experience of only a handful of Mormons that Jonathan or Jason personally know or with whom they have had limited contact. Based on the limited amount of experience, a distinction could hardly be made at all. We could easily say that one group is well read and the other is not.
Jonathan: (3)
You claim that a majority of Mormons reject organic Evolution. This is a very misleading proposition. Today, science recognizes evolution, and religion, particularly the Judeo-Christian
Religion rejects Evolution. Why the latter position? Because of the doctrine of “creation ex nihilo” or creation out of nothing in 6 24-hiour earth days. Therefore, evolution over millions of years is impossible for the Orthodox Christian but not for Mormonism. Within Mormonism, evolution can fit nicely within the 6 creative periods.
What Mormonism rejects about the Theory of Evolution is the claim that God was not needed to guide the process in order for “homo sapiens” to exist the way they do 6000 years ago.
You cited Pew Research that claims only 22% of Mormons accepted Evolution. However, the research did not try to determine whether Mormons accepted God & Evolution or Evolution without God; therefore, the data is meaningless.
Jonathan: (2)
DC 77:16 cannot be reasonably interpreted that the Earth is “merely” 7000 years old. If LDS members believe this then they haven’t read up on the Creation. Joseph Smith’s revelation in the Book of Abraham, did away with the Orthodox Christian doctrine, “Creation ex nihilo” and Genesis’ literal 6 day creation with 6 creative periods. The term, “temporal existence” also implies an existence prior to that. The six “creative periods” are the periods before the earth’s “temporal” existence, referring to the “temporal” probation of the family of Adam, no doubt.
Remember, Jonathan, there is no immateriality in Mormonism – only matter and energy. So the existence prior to the temporal does not refer to an immaterial existence, but an existence that could be measured in terms of how much energy was present in the earth before the beginning of the 7000 years and its demarcation.
Jonathan: (1)
You wrote:
“Internet Mormons often suggest that the literal views of Chapel Mormons are the result of a lack of education and perhaps an inability to appreciate the use of symbolism and metaphor. Evidently, it takes scholars, linguists, and researchers to explain what God was trying to say.”
No, but it does require correct thinking. Honestly Jonathan, you claim to be a guy who is “free” to think in terms of openness and different possibilities but when confronted with disagreements of these kinds, you seem to always go for the one that disparages Mormonism.
Think scientifically – and reduce.
reading over the links...
I am not sure how "Dr. Shades" comes to the conclusions he does. His article "Internet Mormonism vs. Chapel Mormonism" does not really reflect the LDS Church as I know it. It is impossible to divide the members of the church into two camps, and I would not say his assessment of either of these camps is at all accurate. The points may represent the positions of some individuals here or there, but to say they represent a whole group is a gross over-generalization.
I am with Gideonsword on this one.
@Geotopia
What you mean by "Spontaneous Speciation through Evolution" is not clear to me. The idea that species arise through mutation and some form of isolation is not in doubt. If you are saying that species do not arise through mutation you are wrong. If you are saying that it is not spontaneous because God directs it, there is no reason for me to argue with you. (Though I see no reason this must be so.)
And your statement that you have "never met a mormon who didn't acknowledge evolution as a natural process" may be true, but I certainly have.
God put the dinosaur bones in the ground to a) test faith or b) because this world was made of other worlds and those other worlds had dinosaurs.
I would bet, though I haven't taken a poll, that most Mormon's believe in a global flood. I have also met the type that think there was a small localized flood.
I think Jonathan makes some good points in the article. While of course it would be wrong to make a strict dichotomy and demand that all Mormons fall into one of two categories, it is clear to me that there are different types of Mormons and different ways of understanding and interpreting the religion. I don't think the article is arguing all Mormons are either Internet or Chapel Mormons, it simply identifies some trends within Mormonism, that I, and many others, feel are valid observations.
TomH's dogmatic ramblings actually prove the point of the article.
There are some serious methodological flaws in Jason "Dr. Shades" Gallentine's survey and its conclusions.
It would be better to say that there is a broad spectrum of LDS belief, and varying degrees of personal commitment to studying Church history and coming to terms with doctrine vs. folk belief. The Internet has been a useful tool for bringing together LDS thinkers, but before that there were lots of publications and symposia that served the same function. And there are lots of "Chapel Mormons" who use the Internet for Church-related purposes other than history and doctrine.
Some background on "Dr. Shades'" survey and the problems with it, here:
http :// en.fairmormon.org/ Internet_Mormons_vs._Chapel_Mormons
DAman:
Jonathan's article doesn't ask a new question. He covers the same old ground that has been covered before but dresses it up with a new category, concerning what internet Mormons and chapel Mormons think about certain issues. In truth, there is no such thing as an "internet Mormon" and a "chapel" Mormon - this is a fictitious category created in the mind of Jason and Jonathan.
The truth is, Mormon theology is not diverging into "new" directions. However, there are many ways Mormons react to theological questions that are not the same based on personal biases, personal interpretations, and limited knowledge.
Daman said:
"I don't think the article is arguing all Mormons are either Internet or Chapel Mormons, it simply identifies some trends within Mormonism, that I, and many others, feel are valid observations."
Feel? More subjective nonsense....
Mormons feel you are wrong. So who is right Daman?
See the problem?
It should be pointed out that the Pew study asks if respondents agree that evolution explanation for origins of _human life_ on earth (not origin of species).
Perhaps it's easier to accept evolution so long as it's not lumped together with abiogenesis, the spontaneous rise of life.
Repent O ye of little faith....Jonathon Montgomery and become like a witless child believing every thing I say unto you.
Jonathon, you are in danger of hell fire...and the God almighty has spoken to your soul the truthfulness of His word. Return to the Lord and change your ways lest ye be burned at the coming of Christ which day comes rapidly and blood will spill on the streets and the sins of Jonathan will be shouted from the rooftops.
Thus sayeth the Lord
jon, you stink...God probably hates you. I have been Mormon all my life and it has made me a righteous dad with 5 kids.
Jon you are stupid and hatefull and wrong, and will probably go to outer darkness spending time with Governor Boggs.
Joseph Smith is the only true prophet of God, so Thomas Monson quit preaching the Gospel of Satan
(#1 manaen)
You wrote, "...Brigham Young said [...] that those in an interracial marriage should be put to death..."
.
Please cite a source for this; I believe that he did not say it.
.
If you base your statement on a mis-paraphrasing of JD vol 10, p 109: "If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot," I say that you completely miss BY's meaning.
.
Here are some points to consider:
.
* This is from the partly-reliable "Journal of Discourses," which were publications in England of notes of speakers' talks that had not been proofed by the speakers. There is value in these notes, but it's inaccurate to say they are transcripts. In fact, some of the discourses are written as if in the first person but others are written as third-person summaries.
.
* BY speaks of a white man "who belongs to the chosen seed," distinguishing between those who
.
(continued in #2 manaen)
(#2 manaen, continued from #1 manaen)
.
do and do not so belong. "Chosen seed" would mean holders of the Melchizedek Priesthood (D&C 107:40).
.
* BY made this statement in 1863, when interracial marriage was illegal in every state. He therefore is speaking of "seed mixing" outside of marriage. Extra-marital sex's penalty for Melchizedek Priesthood holders typically is excommunication -- considered a spiritual "death" because it blocks entry into God's presence. Or are you aware of any executions among LDS for either interracial marriages or extramarital sex?
.
When BY made this comment, mid-Civil War, white male/black female sex never could be part of interracial marriage but typically was the result of the white male exerting dominance over the black female. Note that BY mentions no penalty for the woman, likely because rape victims are guilty of no sin. This reading is bolstered by BY's comment in the next page of
.
(continued in #3 manaen)
Thomas:
I disagree with your labeling New Order Mormons as "cultural converts." As one who used to frequent the predominant site for them, I would say the vast majority *were* died in the wool believing members _first_ and, after discovering discrepancies in doctrine or history, abandoned the more dogmatic beliefs but remain "in" the church for family (usually) or cultural (sometimes) reasons.
Often they stay in because leaving would be more painful due to family or community ostricization. Often this is because many church members are less Christian than they should be when one makes the choice to leave the belief system.
(#3 manaen, cont. from #2 manaen)
.
this talk, “"For their abuse of [the Black] race, th whites will be cursed, unless they repent." (Journal of Discourses, Vol.10, p.110)
.
BY’s comment could be well paraphrased to read, “'Listen to me, you Latter-day Saints. You know that premarital sex is forbidden. In some religions they may make exceptions to sex with black women because they don't consider them to be real people. But I'm here telling you that if you do such things, you forfeit your crowns of eternal life. Death on the spot.” It was a declaration against abusing black people, not the holy proscription against interracial maas some people propound.
.
(Some of this comment is based upon W. John Walsh’s essay, available at lightplanet[DOT]com/mormons/response/qa/blacks_chosen.htm)
.
I know personally that the LDS Church neither discriminates against nor penalize for interracial marriage. To see the Church’s environment for multiple ethnicities, , go to youtube[DOT]com/
(#3 manaen - completing last sentence)
.
Last sentence should read,
To see the LDS Church’s environment for multiple ethnicities, go to youtube[DOT]com/watch?v=ea6hMDsYVlo&feature=channel_page.
Supporting my arguments is
10. Matter naturally moves from states of high potential energy and low entropy to states of high kinetic energy and high entropy (Newtonian Physical Laws - 2nd law of thermodynamics).
11. Speciation has never actually been observed and the cited examples of grey gulls and mules and the birds of the Gallipagos islsands are actually false examples because they CAN inter-breed or do not breed by preference, and thus do not demonstrate any actual speciation.
12. Occam's razor, while not a law, deals adequately with laws of probability and the complexity required to explain the evolution of the species to where even a simple multi-cell organism can spontaneously come into being requires such a grand leap of faith that it is easier to observe nature and conclude that creatures have a creator.
to which I conclude that:
7. Regardless of natures capacity to create variances at the level of simple organisms, life isn't spontaneously generated,
and
8. Regardless of man's ability to manipulate genes in the laboratory (or factory, field, or farm), it requires intelligence, some of which man possesses,
and therefore
9. Man, animals, plants, and life exists because it has always existed and is organized by intelligence, which intelligence may or may not use genetic mutation or evolution as a method of creating.
and I assert that:
5. Allopatric and parapatric speciation are just imagined contrivances, that no matter how you slice and dice the construct, you end up with sympatric speciation because it comes down to only one pair that cannot mate with the rest of the population regardless of geographic separation.
6. Billions of years and geographic separation are simply obfuscations to convince finitely impaired thinkers that anything is possible given enough time (e.g. 10,000 monkeys on 10,000 typewriters over 10,000 years could recreate the works of Sheakespeare as if they could even type one coherent sentance let alone put the paper into the carriage)
When most people say "Evolution", they are in fact actually referring to "Speciation through Evolution" and I conclude based on many accepted facts that that speciation needs to be spontaneous. These facts are:
1. Genes and mutations are discrete (unblended)
2. Genetic alleles are not the same as genetic mutations (blue eyes v brown is not the same as a new species having or not having eyes)
3. Genetic mutations don't occur over billions of years, they occur in the time it takes for a cell to divide and regenerate the second half of the DNA sequence.
4. The definition of species requires members of one species cannot mate with members of another, not by preference, but by physical inability of their germ cells to combine, and not because of a sterility (e.g. donkeys and mules and horses)
@RyanH:
Let me be clear, I'm not from Utah and have never been to any tiny Mormon enclaves where someone might ignorantly set aside scientific evidence because it might seem to conflict with their tightly held religious beliefs. I would argue science and religion can easily coexist and even support one another if one doesn't let pride get in the way and that goes for both the believer and the scientist. MOST of the Mormons I've met have been in academic and professional circles and I literally cannot recall meeting a single one who does not accept genetic mutation as a fact and evolution as a possibility.
What bothers me about the debate over "Evolution" is the semantic laziness of including "Spontaneous Speciation through Evolution" in the realm of the former where it really is different and the two are not mutually inclusive. Spontaneous speciation is the instantaneous creation of a new species at the joining of gametes or subsequent early mitosis through genetic mutation.
To Manaen:
First off I have no interest in bashing the religion of my childhood. However we have to be honest about our history and what our religion once taught. The hyperlink references to the church's position regarding race is well documented and accurate. While it may be true that Brigham Young's sermon on interracial marriage was misconstrued (although there is a strong argument that it should be taken at face value), it does not negate the disparraging and racist attitudes preached by the LDS official elite for over 100 years.
Honestly, just admit it happened, and move on.
@RyanH:
Why would it matter a hill of beans if:
1. God used evolution, genetic mutation, or snapped his fingers. He would abide by universal laws (HIS laws) and other than accepting that HE did the creating as evidenced by the creature, we need not abandon faith because of a brief peep show on the mechanics of nature.
2. There was a massive global flood, a large regional flood, or a small local flood, because it would only require an area the radius of which a large boat could FLOAT over a 40 some day period. Considering in modern times there are still those that don't travel more than a few miles from where they were born during a lifetime, it would not be hard to imagine Noah's interpretation of events as his world being entirely flooded in any case.
?
(in response to all the previous posts)
AHHHHHHH......... Cognitive Dissonance.....It is such a beautiful thing
Jonathan Montgomery, I have to say this was a pleasure to read, and that I agree with this article completely. Congratulations on crafting a logical and pleasant article.
Jonathan Montgomery overgeneralized his argument thereby trying to steer clear of the elephant in the room. It is not that chapel Mormons cite scripture and speak from simple faith while internet Mormons stipulate the shortcomings of scripture and prophets thereby aiding Church enemies, albeit inadvertantly. I can be described as an internet Latter-day Saint, but I will say this. Chapel Mormons cite Mormon lore and occaisionally scriptures, but always cloaked in the interpretations established by Mormon lore or simplistic interpretations. I as an internet Latter-day Saint cite scritpures, what they really say, and speak from faith built upon the rock of Christ, not the sand of Mormon lore and superficial or puerile readings.
While I appreciate your effort, I think you present an overly simplistic view of the Church. For example, by your definition, Elder Holland is an "Internet Mormon," for he said the following about Brigham's "racist" comments: "One clear-cut position is that the folklore must never be perpetuated. … I have to concede to my earlier colleagues. … They, I'm sure, in their own way, were doing the best they knew to give shape to [the priesthood-ban policy], to give context for it, to give even history to it. All I can say is however well intended the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong. … But some explanations were given and had been given for a lot of years. … At the very least, there should be no effort to perpetuate those efforts to explain why that ‘doctrine' existed…"
Clearly, there is plenty of room in the Mormon tent for all sorts of Mormons.
It appears that you have used the term "internet Mormon to actually mean "enlightened Mormon, "intellectual Mormon"
I consider myself an Internet Mormon, as I use the internet, yet on my views of the Church doctrine, I am definitely a "Pew Mormon."
Jonathan's arguments are meant for traditional Christians.
Mormons believe in priesthood authority and continuing revelation which can clarify doctrines such as a local versus global flood, evolution, etc.
Differing views of these concepts are not threatening to Mormonism.
Traditional Christians however, do not and cannot receive "new" information into their religion without abandoning it because of their "non-prophet" rule, a closed canon and biblical innerrancy.
Mormonism is poised to grow amidst an expanding world and universe.
PTL, pass the jello, and fill up my cup of kool-aid.
Jon, I loved this article. You are right on. I say this as a New
Order Mormon. We are legion in my California ward. Half the
ward slips out after Sacrament Meeting. We find friends and
goodness in the church, but LDS theology and history, not a pretty picture as it were. "A storm is coming... and it's not just Proposition H8."
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!