Evolution And Mormonism

[ANACO]

I have posted it before but here it is again. To me the gospel of evolution of man contradicts the concept of the fall and thus negates the atonement. I know there are some who have rationalized that the fall was not a physical fall and if you want to believe that then fine go for it but as for me fall still means fall not a gradual rise from the primordial ooze.

Right on Bro. ERayR.

Edited August 24, 2012 by ANACO

[mfbukowski]

Where's the "Don't much care" choice?

I was looking for the "Don't know and it doesn't matter" choice for all three questions.

[mfbukowski]

A lot of people have speculated that Adam and Eve form the final stage of human evolution and that speculation comes from the rewording of "created" to "organized" in Genesis.

No, the final stage will be something like "Ubermenschen" or to use the Mormon term, "exaltation".

[mfbukowski]

While Adam may have been formed from the dust of the earth, I do not believe he was made of concrete.

:rofl:

[ERayR]

While Adam may have been formed from the dust of the earth, I do not believe he was made of concrete.

Unlike some of his descendents.

[BCSpace]

I subscribe to the LDS doctrine friendly model of human bodies evolving via natural selection and the human spirit, already evolved/created before this earth's creation, placed into Adam and Eve at conception/birth when all was ready (creation finished). Thus one can accept all science and all LDS doctrine on the matter, including that homo sapiens have been around, breeding and dying, long before the Fall and the fact that there was no death before the Fall; the "garden state" having existed AFTER the creation was finished (2 Nephi 2:22, 1931 Heber J Grant First Presidency statement, doctrine from the institute manual on D&C 77:6-7, etc.).

So for poll purposes, I think it would be good to separate the human and Adam and Eve questions each into two; one about the physical body and one about the spirit body.

While we know from doctrine that the rib story is figurative, there has to be at least some literal truth to the story. That Adam and Ever are real people and the garden is a real place or state. The question remains in my mind as to whether or not the garden state was world-wide or local. There seems to be doctrine or evidence supporting both. For example, the earth's paradisaical state vs. what were Adam and Eve cast out into?

To each his own. I just find that this view, for me, is irreconcilable to a fall.

How so? I believe I've addressed all known concerns related to the Fall, for example I can still honestly and rationally state as LDS doctrine does that there was no death before the Fall, so I am happy untangle any other knots if they exist.

[mfbukowski]

How so? I believe I've addressed all known concerns related to the Fall, for example I can still honestly and rationally state as LDS doctrine does that there was no death before the Fall, so I am happy untangle any other knots if they exist.

OO OO me too!

[ERayR]

How so? I believe I've addressed all known concerns related to the Fall, for example I can still honestly and rationally state as LDS doctrine does that there was no death before the Fall, so I am happy untangle any other knots if they exist.

You have and it is fine that you have made assumptions and rationalizations that work for you but they just don't work for me. Since I am the one responsible for my own soul I think I will pass for now. Thanks anyway. I just don't see any great need to reconcile all scientific theories with religion at this time. So I will just wait and see.

Edited August 25, 2012 by ERayR

[sunstoned]

How so? I believe I've addressed all known concerns related to the Fall, for example I can still honestly and rationally state as LDS doctrine does that there was no death before the Fall, so I am happy untangle any other knots if they exist.

See post #22. The quote is from the first presidency. Adam was the first man.

[ERayR]

What was man before he was a man? Is an oxymoronic question.

How so? In a concept of eternal progression the question or what man progressed from is a logical question.

[mfbukowski]

See post #22. The quote is from the first presidency. Adam was the first man.

Of course he was.

But clearly the first presidency did not mean to say that religion can be verified scientifically, did it? If so, we would not have to walk by faith and the gospel would be contradicted. Aren't we here to walk by faith?

If the gospel requires faith, which it does, then there is no possible way that they would be speaking as scientists stating that Adam was the first man in a scientific sense, because that itself would contradict the gospel. Science does not state that- so if it is a scientific statement, it is contradictory.

In other words, if the gospel is talking about science, it can be proven or disproven by science and we would not need faith. We could take a picture of God and show it to the scientists- find out how much he weighs, etc.

So clearly that statement was not meant to be a statement about who scientifically was the first man- it must have been about who was spiritually the first man. Any other interpretation contradicts the need for faith, and why we have come to earth, and therefore, the gospel itself.

[BCSpace]

How so? I believe I've addressed all known concerns related to the Fall, for example I can still honestly and rationally state as LDS doctrine does that there was no death before the Fall, so I am happy untangle any other knots if they exist.

See post #22. The quote is from the first presidency. Adam was the first man.

Thank you. However, this is easily addressed.

1) The 1909 statement does not state which theories of men are wrong or which are in conflict with doctrine. The debate continued in the Church culminating in the debates with James E Talmadge and B.H. Roberts on the side of pre-Adamites and the young JFS against it. In 1931, the Heber J Grant First Presidency addressed the issue with this statement to the GA's regarding the existence of pre-Adamite races of man:

The statement made by Elder Smith that the existence of pre-Adamites is not a doctrine of the Church is true. It is just as true that the statement: "There were not pre-Adamites upon the earth", is not a doctrine of the Church. Neither side of the controversy has been accepted as a doctrine at all.

......

We can see no advantage to be gained by a continuation of the discussion to which reference is here made, but on the contrary are certain that it would lead to confusion, division and misunderstanding if carried further. Upon one thing we should all be able to agree, namely, that Presidents Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder and Anthon H. Lund were right when they said: "Adam is the primal parent of our race."

First Presidency Minutes, Apr. 7, 1931

So, if neither side is doctrine, then it is possible to accept pre-Admites preGarden state (as opposed to preFall) and therefore evolution has room to swim easily with LDS doctrine.

2) LDS doctrine itself on "first man" fails to preclude evolution:

(2-16) Genesis 2:7 . Adam Was the “First Flesh” upon the Earth

Moses 3:7 adds a significant phrase to Genesis 2:7 : “And man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also.” President Joseph Fielding Smith explained what was meant by the term flesh.

“So, Adam was the first man upon the earth, according to the Lord’s statement, and the first flesh also. That needs a little explanation.

“Adam did not come to this earth until it was prepared for him. The animals were here. Plants were here. The Lord did not bring him here to a desolate world, and then bring other creatures. It was all prepared for him, just according to the order that is written in our scriptures, and when it was all ready for Adam he was placed upon the earth.

“Then what is meant by the ‘first flesh’? It is simple when you understand it. Adam was the first of all creatures to fall and become flesh, and flesh in this sense means mortality, and all through our scriptures the Lord speaks of this life as flesh, while we are here in the flesh, so Adam became the first flesh. There was no other mortal creature before him, and there was no mortal death until he brought it, and the scriptures tell you that. It is here written, and that is the gospel of Jesus Christ.” ( Seek Ye Earnestly, pp. 280–81.)

http://institute.lds...-02-gen-a-2.asp

This does not address the creative period in which the garden state property of no death may not have existed according to 2 Nephi 2:22 which says all things were created (and the doctrine is that we don't know how) AND THEN placed into the garden state.

I agree with the doctrine of no death before the Fall, but the context is the already created earth and so one cannot say there was no death before the garden state.

3) There is also the context of the gospel definition of man; that is to say, a spirit child of God coupled with a homo sapiens body. So what if, as the Church allows for the possibility of, pre-Adamites existed? Did they have literal spirit children of God residing in homo sapiens bodies? We don't know, but the mere possibility they didn't allows for evolution to combine well with LDS doctrine. What could make us ask such a question? What about the scientific fact that homo sapiens have been on the earth for at least several hundred thousand years and yet civilization is only a very recent development? A different spirit, one not capable of taking as much advantage of the homo sapiens brain could be an answer. Revelation from God could be another.

This is just a model of course. But any evolutionary model that can account for LDS doctrine shows that evolution is possible in the realm of LDS doctrine. BRM dared us to find such a model in his non doctrinal Seven Deadly Heresies speech at BYU. I have dared and so have a some others.

Edited August 25, 2012 by BCSpace

[supersnail]

I have posted it before but here it is again. To me the gospel of evolution of man contradicts the concept of the fall and thus negates the atonement. I know there are some who have rationalized that the fall was not a physical fall and if you want to believe that then fine go for it but as for me fall still means fall not a gradual rise from the primordial ooze.

I'm interested in talking about that after I read what has already been said on the subject on this board. I was just agreeing that the particular sentence, "There is nothing in this, however, to indicate that the original man, the first of our race, began life as anything less than a man, or less than the human germ or embryo that becomes a man," by the First Presidency, does not constitute a rejection of evolution. In fact, it seems unusually carefully worded.

However someone else wants to interpret scripture is another matter.

[ERayR]

Of course he was.

But clearly the first presidency did not mean to say that religion can be verified scientifically, did it? If so, we would not have to walk by faith and the gospel would be contradicted. Aren't we here to walk by faith?

If the gospel requires faith, which it does, then there is no possible way that they would be speaking as scientists stating that Adam was the first man in a scientific sense, because that itself would contradict the gospel. Science does not state that- so if it is a scientific statement, it is contradictory.

In other words, if the gospel is talking about science, it can be proven or disproven by science and we would not need faith. We could take a picture of God and show it to the scientists- find out how much he weighs, etc.

So clearly that statement was not meant to be a statement about who scientifically was the first man- it must have been about who was spiritually the first man. Any other interpretation contradicts the need for faith, and why we have come to earth, and therefore, the gospel itself.

Maybe but I am not yet convinced that science can tell us who or when the first man was physically.

[mfbukowski]

Maybe but I am not yet convinced that science can tell us who or when the first man was physically.

No, it never will either. Because such a definition is not within science's ability to define. It looks only at the physical, not the spiritual. That is kind of my point.

[Flyonthewall]

Did humans evolve through natural selection and random mutation from other primates and those primates from other non-primate species?

Absolutely not.

Were Adam and Eve(n) two human beings (Homo sapiens sapiens) created without being part of a species that evolved from lower species?

Yes.

What describes better what the Garden of Eden mentioned in Genesis is/was?

An actual place that existed or exists on Earth.

I believe humans have always been humans. God is the Man of Holiness. Man existed before this earth and will exist afterward. Adam and Eve were the first Man/humans on this earth.

The fossil record that scientists use to justify cross species evolution, is not part of this earth as created for us, meaning it was there before God started the creative periods as described in Genesis.

The church and prophets have been very clear, to me anyways, that Man DID NOT evolve from any other species. We are children of God, not Cheetah(so to speak).

[Alvino]

This poll is not so simple. I believe in evolution but I don't believe it was random. As David McKay said in a letter to a BYU science professor "Evolution is a beautiful concept if you recognize the hand of God in it" (might not be exactly correct but close).

random mutation is random, natural selection is not. Evolution has both.

About the hand of God, what did God do? Did he purposefully knock a few molecules off a few specific organisms' DNA? Did God kill a few predators so the preys would reproduce more? Did God introduce a new predator in an ecosystem to kill what he didn't want reproduced? How come why some species survive becomes so predictable and precise if we understand the environment in which they try to survive? What does that leave God doing? What offers better science: a being, "God", who made some changes for who knows what reason (not counting that most species who ever lived are extinct), or the environment that explains the changes so well?

Edited August 26, 2012 by Alvino

[mfbukowski]

What offers better science: a being, "God", who made some changes for who knows what reason (not counting that most species who ever lived are extinct), or the environment that explains the changes so well?

What makes better religion: believing that life has no meaning or morality and is determined by forces by forces beyond our control, or the idea that we have a choice in determining our destiny, there is right and wrong, and there is a plan to the universe within which mankind has a central role?

Can science give us the latter view? Honestly, which view gives your life more meaning?

[William James]

Because of very power evidence that evolution is a fact and that species very similar to humans clearly exist(ed), but because I also believe in God as having created our bodies, I believe that God most likely guided the process of evolution. There were no perfect answers to the first question to reflect my view, so I had to choose the first response to question on (even though I don't believe all of our human evolution was "random").

[Alvino]

[...]but because I also believe in God as having created our bodies, I believe that God most likely guided the process of evolution.

What did God do? Or, what does it mean to say that God "guided evolution"?

[Alvino]

What makes better religion: believing that life has no meaning or morality and is determined by forces by forces beyond our control, or the idea that we have a choice in determining our destiny, there is right and wrong, and there is a plan to the universe within which mankind has a central role?

"life with no meaning" and "lack of morality" etc are tired rhetoric from people who haven't taken the time to nurture an intellectual secularism seriously. Most philosophers, for example, accept morality is objective and are compatibilists with regards to free will.

Even if I accepted your naive dichotomy, I don't even know what would make a better religion and the reason is because humans have a talent for creating a whole bunch of humane, beautiful, and creative ideas to accompany unsavory beliefs given enough time, Nietzsche being the prime example.

Can science give us the latter view? Honestly, which view gives your life more meaning?

First of all, that's irrelevant to whether it is an irrational set of beliefs or not. As I've heard Richard Dawkins state, the universe doesn't owe you a comfortable, cozy universe or meaning. Secondly, I find it somewhat confusing when folks mention the "meaning of life". You obviously don't mean atheist secularism is incompatible with the meaning of words or with the truthfulness of mathematics. It also isn't incompatible with there being intelligent beings in the Universe who can understand it more or less. "Meaning", then, just seems to mean a life you find fulfilling or worth living both of which are very much in tune with an atheist and secular worldview. Actually, most atheist I've seen agree that a life without dogmatic religion is more fulfilling and more worth living than a religious life since religion is founded on things that are not correct. And, to be perfectly honest, I think the easiest things to show to a religious person is that even if this is a finite life, life is still very much (or even more) worth living than if it is an infinite one.

Edited August 26, 2012 by Alvino

[CV75]

What offers better science: a being, "God", who made some changes for who knows what reason (not counting that most species who ever lived are extinct), or the environment that explains the changes so well?

Of course an intelligent being of any kind would offer (come up with) better science than an environment. I'm sure this isn't what you meant. The generally accepted science of the day would say that environmental mechanisms have a role in evolution and that God does not have a role in either.

[CV75]

And, to be perfectly honest, I think the easiest things to show to a religious person is that even if this is a finite life, life is still very much (or even more) worth living than if it is an infinite one.

i'm not looking for much debate here; I just want to know what you think.

[mfbukowski]

"life with no meaning" and "lack of morality" etc are tired rhetoric from people who haven't taken the time to nurture an intellectual secularism seriously. Most philosophers, for example, accept morality is objective and are compatibilists with regards to free will.

Even if I accepted your naive dichotomy, I don't even know what would make a better religion and the reason is because humans have a talent for creating a whole bunch of humane, beautiful, and creative ideas to accompany unsavory beliefs given enough time, Nietzsche being the prime example.

First of all, that's irrelevant to whether it is an irrational set of beliefs or not. As I've heard Richard Dawkins state, the universe doesn't owe you a comfortable, cozy universe or meaning. Secondly, I find it somewhat confusing when folks mention the "meaning of life". You obviously don't mean atheist secularism is incompatible with the meaning of words or with the truthfulness of mathematics. It also isn't incompatible with there being intelligent beings in the Universe who can understand it more or less. "Meaning", then, just seems to mean a life you find fulfilling or worth living both of which are very much in tune with an atheist and secular worldview. Actually, most atheist I've seen agree that a life without dogmatic religion is more fulfilling and more worth living than a religious life since religion is founded on things that are not correct. And, to be perfectly honest, I think the easiest things to show to a religious person is that even if this is a finite life, life is still very much (or even more) worth living than if it is an infinite one.

Well I don't know that it's all that naive since we largely agree, unless maybe you put yourself in that category as well. I mean if you want to swap jargon we can do that, but I like to communicate with those on the board as well. After all we have discussed this elsewhere haven't we? There are not many on these boards who are atheists who think morality is "objective".

And honestly I really do understand secularism pretty well, considering I am a humanist and believe in humanistic ethics. On the other hand, I suppose you know that humanism and Mormonism are compatible, right? After all God is a man, isn't he?

If you haven't, I would suggest that if you read some Rorty- he is an atheist- he sees having meaning and solidarity in one's life very differently. Back in the olden days when I was an atheist too, I saw things his way, but then God whapped me over the head and all of a sudden it all jelled with me- Nietzsche taught me that man is god, and oddly enough he was right, but he kind of had it backwards. Rorty's problem is that he is arguing against a transcendent god- and for that matter so do I. No one ever guessed that God could be immanent.

Have fun Mr S, and welcome back

http://www.amazon.com/The-Future-Religion-Gianni-Vattimo/dp/0231134940

[Alvino]

i'm not looking for much debate here; I just want to know what you think.

that's not much, I would say.