Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SamuelTheLamanite

No position on God? How Evolution works according to Science

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

 Science teaches the motion of planets is explained by gravity. If we fall off a cliff would it mean God was ultimately responsible?  Gravity and God are not the same thing, and that is why I believe our astronomical observations are just an illusion to test our faith.  

I thought Alma 30 was revelation. 

Yes, but that does not mean our conversation is just inside my brain.  

Science teaches that resurrections don't happen. 

The orbit of the planets is not  fully described by gravity, but it come really close. Perturbation Theory explains it better. But still not completely. Plus we still don't know exactly what gravity is. 

SEE https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=66&v=hByJBdQXjXU

We fall of that cliff whether there is a God or not.

SEE http://www.theonion.com/article/evangelical-scientists-refute-gravity-with-new-int-1778

I don't have a problem with revelation. I do have a problem with your interpretation of it.

It is a inside both of our heads. There is no "just" about it. BTW For all I know you are just a series of electronic blips on a computer screen that I interpret as being you.

Science does no such thing. It can neither confirm nor deny a Resurrection. There are several religions that believe it, but science isn't based on religion, or the lack there of.  Individual scientists can believe in it or not, as they desire. So far there is no generally accepted physical evidence that once human's are dead.(All brain activity gone for more than a few minutes) that we come back to life. Maybe you've seen the pictures of shadows of people incinerated when we dropped the Atomic Bombs on Japan. All that is left to show they ever existed is their shadow. So while I believe they will be Resurrected there is nothing in science that says they can be.

SEE https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=pictures+of+shadows+of+people+incinerated+when+we+dropped+the+Atomic+Bombs+on+Japan.&fr=yhs-adk-adk_sbnt&hspart=adk&hsimp=yhs-adk_sbnt&imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fworldwar2database.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fwwii1439.jpg#id=0&iurl=http%3A%2F%2Fworldwar2database.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fwwii1439.jpg&action=click

 

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Do you believe the Resurrection of Jesus was a historical truth?

I believe it's a metaphorical truth, but again, it's not about what I believe. I'm talking to you about a more sophisticated form of Christianity. Christians who are not the most fundamentalist of fundamentalists affirm the resurrection AND evolution. 

 

23 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Is revelation a metaphor? Is the atonement a metaphor? 

They don't have to be. They can be literal, figurative, and both at the same time. 

 

23 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

I understand, but many scientists say faith in God is not necessary.  My facebook friend told me purpose and meaning don't exists, both are simply a human invention according to him. I do see some aspects of science as anti-God because it is a test of faith. Isn't it possible that God made our world appear to be godless to test our faith? 

Faith in God is necessary in most religious traditions. It has nothing to do with science. Science isn't about God (for or against) in the same way it isn't about being pro or anti-disco. There's no relationship at all there. 

Share this post


Link to post

On the concept of human beings evolving from more primitive species, I think it is important to recognize some of the statements the brethren have made regarding Adam's creation.

http://emp.byui.edu/OpenshawR/Pearl of Great Price/Creation Of Adam.htm

(The First Presidency in Melvin A. and M. Garfield Cook, Science & Mormonism [SLC: Deseret Book Company, 1973], p. 156; in Messages of the First Presidency 4:266.)

“In a letter to Samuel O. Bennion, February 26, 1912, Joseph F. Smith, Anthon H. Lund and Charles W. Penrose stated:But President Young went on to show that our Father Adam—that is our earthy father—the progenitor of the race of man, stands at the head being 'Michael the Archangel, the Ancient of Days,' and that he was not fashioned from earth life and adobe but begotten by his Father in Heaven."

(Joseph F. Smith, delivered Dec 7, 1913 at Mesa, AZ, Deseret Evening News, Dec. 27, 1913, Sec. 3, p. 7.)

      I know that God is a being with body, parts and passions and that His Son, Jesus Christ, grew and developed into manhood the same as you or I, as likewise did God, His Father, grow and develop to the Supreme Being that He now is. Man was born of woman; Christ, the Savior, was born of woman, and God, the Father, was born of woman. Adam, our earthly parent, was also born of woman into this world, the same as Jesus and you and I.

(Orson F. Whitney, "Divine Mission of the Savior," Course of Study for the Quorums of the Priesthood, 1910, pp. 35, 37.)

      Man is, in the most literal sense, a child of God. This is not only true of the spirit of man, but of his body also....

      One of the important points about this topic is to learn, if possible, how Adam obtained his body of flesh and bones. There would seem to be but one natural and reasonable explanation, and that is, that Adam obtained his body in the same way Christ obtained his -- and just as all men obtain theirs -- namely, by being born of woman.

(Boyd K. Packer, General Conference Address, Ensign, Nov. 1984, pp. 66-69.)

      Since every living thing follows the pattern of its parentage, are we to suppose that God had some other strange pattern in mind for His offspring?

(Robert J. Matthews, A Bible! A Bible!, SLC: Bookcraft, 1990 pg. 188-189, 193-194.)

      I believe that Adam's physical body was the offspring of God, literally (Moses 6:22); that he was begotten as a baby with a physical body not subject to death, in a world without sin or blood; and that he grew to manhood in that condition and then became mortal through his own actions. I believe that Adam's physical body was begotten by our immortal celestial Father and an immortal celestial Mother, and thus not into a condition of mortality, a condition which would have precluded Jesus from being the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh (D&C 93:11)–flesh meaning mortality. Jesus’ physical body was also begotten of the same celestial Father but through a mortal woman and hence into mortality.

This all flies in the face of evolution's concept of man coming from more primitive species.  

Something to consider.

 

Share this post


Link to post

I don't want any of those individuals anywhere near a laboratory of science. BTW. BYU has a well respected paleontology museum with the scientifically correct dates for the animals on exhibit there. Plus it teaches Evolution in its science classrooms.

Edited by thesometimesaint

Share this post


Link to post

Expertise in a laboratory has been a requirement for God's prophets revealing truth for how long?

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, DJBrown said:

This all flies in the face of evolution's concept of man coming from more primitive species.  

Something to consider.

 

Adults come from more primitive babies. Babies are messy, drooly, and only partially formed humans. Babies come from more primitive embryos. Embryos come from more primitive zygotes. Even if our spirits did not come from more "primitive" spirits, our bodies come from the very clay of this earth. Our bodies are well adapted to the rigors of our temporary existence here on this earth. Creating tabernacles for our divine spirits through evolutionary processes that make us fit for our environment on this earth makes perfect sense to me. It makes much more sense than sending a divine body and then somehow making it mortal through a single act of disobedience. Something to consider.

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

Adults come from more primitive babies. Babies are messy, drooly, and only partially formed humans. Babies come from more primitive embryos. Embryos come from more primitive zygotes. Even if our spirits did not come from more "primitive" spirits, our bodies come from the very clay of this earth. Our bodies are well adapted to the rigors of our temporary existence here on this earth. Creating tabernacles for our divine spirits through evolutionary processes that make us fit for our environment on this earth makes perfect sense to me. It makes much more sense than sending a divine body and then somehow making it mortal through a single act of disobedience. Something to consider.

 

The keys phrase is 'more primitive species.'  

One of my thoughts on evolution and its acceptance is the frequency with which we are all exposed to this idea.  Does that affect whether we accept it?  I think so.  We are taught evolution so often as we grow up that it does seem to 'make sense' or seem logical or easy to accept.  

But at the core of this issue is our relationship with God.  If evolution is the means by which human beings came into existence, there isn't much that differentiates our belief about our relationship with God from the doctrines found in Christendom in general.  And if you think that seems acceptable, read what Joseph Smith had to say about the topic.

Share this post


Link to post
44 minutes ago, DJBrown said:

The keys phrase is 'more primitive species.'  

One of my thoughts on evolution and its acceptance is the frequency with which we are all exposed to this idea.  Does that affect whether we accept it?  I think so.  We are taught evolution so often as we grow up that it does seem to 'make sense' or seem logical or easy to accept.  

But at the core of this issue is our relationship with God.  If evolution is the means by which human beings came into existence, there isn't much that differentiates our belief about our relationship with God from the doctrines found in Christendom in general.  And if you think that seems acceptable, read what Joseph Smith had to say about the topic.

1. Species aren't "primitive" - they are either successful or unsuccessful. I don't think you can make sense of "primitive" in terms of evolution. A successful species can persist through extreme environmental changes without much variation. There's lots of species alive today that were alive when dinosaurs roamed the earth.

2. I don't see how evolution affects our relationship with God at all. We're all God's spirit children. It's like saying we need the Adam/God theory to have a proper relationship with God because only in Adam/God are our physical bodies also God's children.

Edited by clarkgoble

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

1. Species aren't "primitive" - they are either successful or unsuccessful. I don't think you can make sense of "primitive" in terms of evolution. A successful species can persist through extreme environmental changes without much variation. There's lots of species alive today that were alive when dinosaurs roamed the earth.

2. I don't see how evolution affects our relationship with God at all. We're all God's spirit children. It's like saying we need the Adam/God theory to have a proper relationship with God because only in Adam/God are our physical bodies also God's children.

According to evolution, we evolved from more primitive species.  You can use the word 'basic' if that helps.  Human beings are far more complex than the species from which we evolved (according to evolution).  Successful or unsuccessful absolutely fails to describe the distinction appropriate here.

Are we the same species as God?  Or is God's "Fatherhood" really just some abstract, symbolic thing?  If we really came from other species (sorry, but more primitive makes a great deal of sense here), how isn't our relationship with God the same as the relationship described through a trinitarian theology (i.e. symbolic fatherhood resulting from the act of creating something else)?  

If you found out that you really didn't come from your mother and father's bodies, but that you were somehow created by them in a lab, would that not effect your relationship with them and how you felt about yourself and them?

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, DJBrown said:

 

The keys phrase is 'more primitive species.'  

One of my thoughts on evolution and its acceptance is the frequency with which we are all exposed to this idea.  Does that affect whether we accept it?  I think so.  We are taught evolution so often as we grow up that it does seem to 'make sense' or seem logical or easy to accept.  

But at the core of this issue is our relationship with God.  If evolution is the means by which human beings came into existence, there isn't much that differentiates our belief about our relationship with God from the doctrines found in Christendom in general.  And if you think that seems acceptable, read what Joseph Smith had to say about the topic.

I don't care what Joseph Smith had to say about the topic.  He was fully human and subject to the primary world view of the time (fixity of species). I'm more interested in what current prophets have to say about it and I don't hear President Monson speaking against it. President Hinckley expressed: "Leave Geology, Biology, Archaeology and Anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind to scientific research, while me magnify our calling in the realm of the Church."

We can interpret that in a couple of ways: 1. The church is neutral on the topic of evolution. or 2. We should not let a belief in science interfere with our higher spiritual responsibilities.   

When you say "more primitive species", what does that mean? All successful species are well adapted to their environments. Our ancient predecessors were really not more primitive than we are, they were just adapted to a different environment and they always reproduced after their own kind. No species ever gives birth to another species-that's just not how evolution works. The important thing is that all life is connected and is part of a greater whole. We are not only all God's creations, but we are all physically related to each other. The genes we inherited from our ancient ancestors help us to survive. Along the way we developed other characteristics that allowed us to develop greater thinking skills, empathy and the ability to comprehend our relationship with God and more fully serve Him and each other.

Please don't assume that I was exposed to this idea growing up. Exactly the opposite. I was taught that evolutionary theory was a dangerous heresy. I was fully adult when I began to study biology and to understand that nothing makes sense in the natural world outside of the framework of evolution. Spiritual matters, however, I take counsel from my religion. :)

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, DJBrown said:

According to evolution, we evolved from more primitive species.  You can use the word 'basic' if that helps.  Human beings are far more complex than the species from which we evolved (according to evolution).  Successful or unsuccessful absolutely fails to describe the distinction appropriate here.

Again species can become less complex if that offers them a competitive advantage. Now if all you are saying is that a human is more complex than the simple life two billion years ago then I completely agree. If you are saying there's a direction to evolution then I disagree.

Quote

Are we the same species as God?  Or is God's "Fatherhood" really just some abstract, symbolic thing?  If we really came from other species (sorry, but more primitive makes a great deal of sense here), how isn't our relationship with God the same as the relationship described through a trinitarian theology (i.e. symbolic fatherhood resulting from the act of creating something else)?  

We're the same species in terms of our spirits. Only Brigham's Adam/God theory has us being the same species in terms of earthly biology. That's because Adam and Eve received telestial bodies during the fall which were different from the terrestrial bodies they had in the garden and the celestial bodies they'll have in the resurrection. Only in Adam/God theory is species relevant for comparing a telestial body to a celestial. 

Now of course we resemble each other but there's no theology outside of Adam/God theory that requires us to be the same biological species.

Quote

If you found out that you really didn't come from your mother and father's bodies, but that you were somehow created by them in a lab, would that not effect your relationship with them and how you felt about yourself and them?

Do you think adopted children see their parents as any less their parents? To make an obvious point, if it turns out creation of our spirits involved numerous celestial beings rather than just Heavenly Father, would you view God differently? i.e. it's completely unclear doctrinally whether we each get an individual creation like God the Father or whether we participate in future creations when exalted along with Jesus in a single creation.

Now maybe you do see a difference, but I suspect most don't. Further it's not a point that the Church has doctrine on.

Of course individuals can have their own interpretations. I'm surprised Elder Packer accepts that part of Adam/God but it doesn't ultimately bother me too much. It's not taught as doctrine of course. In any case even in Elder Packer's model there's still a distinction between a telestial and terrestrial body so it still doesn't ultimately affect the issue of evolution. He doesn't address whether Adam's birth involved DNA and flawed physical birth as understood biologically. I'd assume he doesn't. Further I suspect even he'd agree that the Church has no position over the nature of the difference between telestial and terrestrial bodies at the chemical level.

Edited by clarkgoble

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, DJBrown said:

Expertise in a laboratory has been a requirement for God's prophets revealing truth for how long?

OH I don't know. Maybe from the times of the ancient Egyptians and the value of Pi.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, katherine the great said:

Adults come from more primitive babies. Babies are messy, drooly, and only partially formed humans. Babies come from more primitive embryos. Embryos come from more primitive zygotes. Even if our spirits did not come from more "primitive" spirits, our bodies come from the very clay of this earth. Our bodies are well adapted to the rigors of our temporary existence here on this earth. Creating tabernacles for our divine spirits through evolutionary processes that make us fit for our environment on this earth makes perfect sense to me. It makes much more sense than sending a divine body and then somehow making it mortal through a single act of disobedience. Something to consider.

We're much closer to a dirty water droplet than clay. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Again species can become less complex if that offers them a competitive advantage. Now if all you are saying is that a human is more complex than the simple life two billion years ago then I completely agree. If you are saying there's a direction to evolution then I disagree.

We're the same species in terms of our spirits. Only Brigham's Adam/God theory has us being the same species in terms of earthly biology. That's because Adam and Eve received telestial bodies during the fall which were different from the terrestrial bodies they had in the garden and the celestial bodies they'll have in the resurrection. Only in Adam/God theory is species relevant for comparing a telestial body to a celestial. 

Now of course we resemble each other but there's no theology outside of Adam/God theory that requires us to be the same biological species.

Do you think adopted children see their parents as any less their parents? To make an obvious point, if it turns out creation of our spirits involved numerous celestial beings rather than just Heavenly Father, would you view God differently? i.e. it's completely unclear doctrinally whether we each get an individual creation like God the Father or whether we participate in future creations when exalted along with Jesus in a single creation.

Now maybe you do see a difference, but I suspect most don't. Further it's not a point that the Church has doctrine on.

Of course individuals can have their own interpretations. I'm surprised Elder Packer accepts that part of Adam/God but it doesn't ultimately bother me too much. It's not taught as doctrine of course. In any case even in Elder Packer's model there's still a distinction between a telestial and terrestrial body so it still doesn't ultimately affect the issue of evolution. He doesn't address whether Adam's birth involved DNA and flawed physical birth as understood biologically. I'd assume he doesn't. Further I suspect even he'd agree that the Church has no position over the nature of the difference between telestial and terrestrial bodies at the chemical level.

Red Herring alert!  I have no interest in splitting hairs on complexity of organisms.  Go back far enough- evolution says we came from primitive, simple, far-less complicated beings. You are focusing on something that is entirely beside the point.  We are created directly in the image of God literally or not. 

The two opposing views here are 1. Human beings descended from Heavenly, exalted Parents, or 2. Human beings descended from lower forms of life.  These two ideas could not be more opposite.  And there could hardly be an issue that more dramatically effects man's relationship to deity.

Luke chapter 3 outlines the genealogy of Joseph, caretaker of Christ.  That line of ancestors ends with Adam, "which was the son of God."   Given how carefully the scriptures emphasize the lineage of mankind going back to God, it is really hard for me to understand how latter-day saints try to reconcile the doctrine with evolution's very clear teaching that is exactly the opposite.  

And this doesn't really depend on the "Adam-God' theory.  That, too, is a distraction.  How do you reconcile the terrestrial bodies of Adam and Eve becoming telestial upon leaving the Garden of Eden if they were the result of evolution?  

Call it whatever you like- species, kind, etc.- the scriptures teach that we are the "offspring of God," His children.  That necessarily takes on a completely different meaning if we are only connected to God through evolution.  

How could we be the same species as God yet be of another species physically?  We are clearly different in glory and degree of perfection and development.  That more resembles a human fetus developing into a baby and further into an adult.  The species does not change.  

And yes, adopted children struggle very often with their feelings toward both their biological and adoptive parents.  Children feel differently about step-parents than they do about biological parents much of the time.  But this is really beside the point.  

There is no idea more contrary to the basic principles of the gospel than evolution.  "I am a child of one-cell organisms......."  Yes- this is a joke of course, but it makes a valid point.  This concept really arose a decade after Elijah appeared in the temple restoring the sealing keys.  Instead of tracing our ancestors back to Adam and God, evolutionary thought traces our ancestry back to undeveloped,  basic life forms.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
53 minutes ago, DJBrown said:

Red Herring alert!  I have no interest in splitting hairs on complexity of organisms.  Go back far enough- evolution says we came from primitive, simple, far-less complicated beings. You are focusing on something that is entirely beside the point.  We are created directly in the image of God literally or not. 

False dichotomy alert. We could be created in the image of God with the method of production not being birth.

Quote

The two opposing views here are 1. Human beings descended from Heavenly, exalted Parents, or 2. Human beings descended from lower forms of life.  These two ideas could not be more opposite.  And there could hardly be an issue that more dramatically effects man's relationship to deity.

Again false dichotomy. We could be descended from heavenly exalted parents and other forms of life.

Quote

Luke chapter 3 outlines the genealogy of Joseph, caretaker of Christ.  That line of ancestors ends with Adam, "which was the son of God."   Given how carefully the scriptures emphasize the lineage of mankind going back to God, it is really hard for me to understand how latter-day saints try to reconcile the doctrine with evolution's very clear teaching that is exactly the opposite.  

Luke doesn't list every figure in the genealogy and it isn't necessarily revealed. Further even if Adam was a son of God you still have the telestial/terrestrial/celestial body distinction. i.e. what does it mean to be a son in this case?

Quote

And this doesn't really depend on the "Adam-God' theory.  That, too, is a distraction.  How do you reconcile the terrestrial bodies of Adam and Eve becoming telestial upon leaving the Garden of Eden if they were the result of evolution?  

The fall made bodies that resembled their terrestial bodies but now functioned chemically in a fashion requiring meat, had cell death, wore out, and functioned chemically via proteins, DNA and so forth. Most significantly Adam and Eve came to resemble the life in the fallen world sharing the vast amount of DNA. Given the characteristics of their body in the garden (apparently didn't eat in a fashion that killed anything, didn't age, couldn't have children) the body was extremely different from the cell/DNA based life on earth.

The one thing we are extremely sure about is what our bodies are like chemically. We have no idea what a terrestrial bodies are like beyond some vague properties that indicate they're extremely different. So no matter what your view, you have to explain the shift in bodies to death (cells are constantly dying), mutations (cancer), birth defects, and all the other characteristics of human bodies. Once you have to explain DNA you're already having to explain why sons of God have DNA nearly the same as a chimp. If you can explain that you've explained why they resemble DNA.

Quote

And yes, adopted children struggle very often with their feelings toward both their biological and adoptive parents.  Children feel differently about step-parents than they do about biological parents much of the time.  But this is really beside the point.  

But it was key to your argument. 

Quote

There is no idea more contrary to the basic principles of the gospel than evolution.  "I am a child of one-cell organisms......."  Yes- this is a joke of course, but it makes a valid point.  This concept really arose a decade after Elijah appeared in the temple restoring the sealing keys.  Instead of tracing our ancestors back to Adam and God, evolutionary thought traces our ancestry back to undeveloped,  basic life forms.  

But of course that's not what evolution says. Nor from a theological perspective does it solely trace our ancestry back in that fashion. Again the fundamental issue is spirit birth. And technically, while I accept spirit birth, I don't think it's typically a doctrine based in revelation. It was a common post-Nauvoo teaching but adoption is just as compatible with our doctrine. Lots of members accept adoption. There's definitely no theological requirement for Adam contra scripture being made sexually by God.

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/14/2017 at 8:56 AM, Gray said:

It has nothing to do with science. Science isn't about God (for or against) in the same way it isn't about being pro or anti-disco. There's no relationship at all there. 

works for Deism

On 9/14/2017 at 8:56 AM, Gray said:

 I'm talking to you about a more sophisticated form of Christianity.

I understand, it is not hard to get sophisticated. 

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, katherine the great said:

Adults come from more primitive babies. Babies are messy, drooly, and only partially formed humans. Babies come from more primitive embryos. Embryos come from more primitive zygotes. Even if our spirits did not come from more "primitive" spirits, our bodies come from the very clay of this earth. Our bodies are well adapted to the rigors of our temporary existence here on this earth. Creating tabernacles for our divine spirits through evolutionary processes that make us fit for our environment on this earth makes perfect sense to me. It makes much more sense than sending a divine body and then somehow making it mortal through a single act of disobedience. Something to consider.

Very well explained (out of points).  🤔

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

We're much closer to a dirty water droplet than clay. ;)

I'm actually more of a mud puddle person actually.

Edited by mfbukowski

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I'm actually more of a mud puddle person actually.

The average adult human is about 60% water. That's a mighty thin mud you have there. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/15/2017 at 1:54 PM, clarkgoble said:

False dichotomy alert. We could be created in the image of God with the method of production not being birth.

Again false dichotomy. We could be descended from heavenly exalted parents and other forms of life.

Luke doesn't list every figure in the genealogy and it isn't necessarily revealed. Further even if Adam was a son of God you still have the telestial/terrestrial/celestial body distinction. i.e. what does it mean to be a son in this case?

The fall made bodies that resembled their terrestial bodies but now functioned chemically in a fashion requiring meat, had cell death, wore out, and functioned chemically via proteins, DNA and so forth. Most significantly Adam and Eve came to resemble the life in the fallen world sharing the vast amount of DNA. Given the characteristics of their body in the garden (apparently didn't eat in a fashion that killed anything, didn't age, couldn't have children) the body was extremely different from the cell/DNA based life on earth.

The one thing we are extremely sure about is what our bodies are like chemically. We have no idea what a terrestrial bodies are like beyond some vague properties that indicate they're extremely different. So no matter what your view, you have to explain the shift in bodies to death (cells are constantly dying), mutations (cancer), birth defects, and all the other characteristics of human bodies. Once you have to explain DNA you're already having to explain why sons of God have DNA nearly the same as a chimp. If you can explain that you've explained why they resemble DNA.

But it was key to your argument. 

But of course that's not what evolution says. Nor from a theological perspective does it solely trace our ancestry back in that fashion. Again the fundamental issue is spirit birth. And technically, while I accept spirit birth, I don't think it's typically a doctrine based in revelation. It was a common post-Nauvoo teaching but adoption is just as compatible with our doctrine. Lots of members accept adoption. There's definitely no theological requirement for Adam contra scripture being made sexually by God.

We either evolved from more basic species.  Or we didn't.  That is not a false dichotomy. 

We descended directly from Heavenly Parents without 'intermediary' species.  Or we didn't.  

You are perseverating on DNA/cell function.  And I don't think it is relevant.  I think it is simply distracting.  Will we be of another species after resurrection?  I don't think so.  Will we be resurrected in the physical form of a lower form of life- Neanderthal?  

Could it be that God made creatures with the same building blocks?  Why would he do otherwise?  Did a 2017 Ford F150 pickup literally, physically evolve from a 1908 Ford Model T?  Of course not.  But that is the argument you are making.  Similar structure and function somehow proves one thing evolved from another.  And this completely ignores the fact that the creator fashioned these two things separately out of similar materials and structures.

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, DJBrown said:

We either evolved from more basic species.  Or we didn't.  That is not a false dichotomy. 

We descended directly from Heavenly Parents without 'intermediary' species.  Or we didn't.  

You are perseverating on DNA/cell function.  And I don't think it is relevant.  I think it is simply distracting.  Will we be of another species after resurrection?  I don't think so.  Will we be resurrected in the physical form of a lower form of life- Neanderthal?  

Could it be that God made creatures with the same building blocks?  Why would he do otherwise?  Did a 2017 Ford F150 pickup literally, physically evolve from a 1908 Ford Model T?  Of course not.  But that is the argument you are making.  Similar structure and function somehow proves one thing evolved from another.  And this completely ignores the fact that the creator fashioned these two things separately out of similar materials and structures.

Our physical bodies evolved from simpler organisms.

Our physical bodies didn't. Our spirit bodies aren't a question for science.

We will be the same species as we are now. Though it is unclear in our day as to how a mortal being becomes an immortal one. I'm sure one day we'll know how it is done.

Non-living things can not evolve. That is just a remake of the old Watchmakers Fallacy.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

Our physical bodies evolved from simpler organisms.

Our physical bodies didn't. Our spirit bodies aren't a question for science.

We will be the same species as we are now. Though it is unclear in our day as to how a mortal being becomes an immortal one. I'm sure one day we'll know how it is done.

Non-living things can not evolve. That is just a remake of the old Watchmakers Fallacy.

You believe our physical bodies evolved from simpler organisms.  And I think that is extremely difficult to reconcile with the doctrines of the restored gospel.  And I do not believe the evidence supports that concept either.

As it relates to the claims of evolution, the evidence shows:

1.  Earth is older than once believed.

2.  There are more species than previously recognized

3.  Those species are built from the same fundamental building blocks

 

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×